politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “Literal Democrats” 2014 style: The “An Independence fr

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “Literal Democrats” 2014 style: The “An Independence from Europe” party could hurt UKIP big time

Back at the 1994 European Elections the Lib Dems thought that had lost in the South West region because a party calling itself “The Literal Democrats” syphoned off support that the party believe should have gone to them. This led to a celebrated court case which the Yellows lost.

Read the full story here

rcs1000

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

corporeal

Iirc there was a "No2EU" party in 2009 that garnered a few % of the vote.

anotherDave

"As can be seen from the ballot paper above by using the word “an” the Natrass’s party has ensured that it is at the top of the list. "

Doesn't the order of the party names vary?

Socrates

@rcs1000

FPT

I find it interesting that you don't believe that the government has any right to stop people entering sovereign territory of a nation, but strongly support the government stopping people entering private territory of a wealthy person. This view of rights happens to perfectly dovetail with the interests of high net worth individuals, such as yourself, who benefit from the cheap labour of mass immigration yet have their own wealthy enclaves to protect themselves from the negative effects.

JosiasJessop

Whilst I'm not exactly a UKIP fan, this sort of move is crummy to say the least.

Socrates

On topic, what is the bloody point of the electoral commission if they don't stop this obvious masquerading for votes that are meant for another party?

anotherDave

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

Where would you put EFTA membership? That was the route recommended by the IEA Brexit prize winner.

http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation

isam

Hard to believe people like that are interested in democracy if they're prepared to literally trick people into voting for a party that they didn't mean to

taffys

to RCS...

''I think we've allowed ourselves to believe in a whole bunch of entitlements that don't exist''

This would be a good argument if the politicians that represented us explained that this was the case.

But they don't. They claim to represent our interests. I just don;t see how its in our interests to allow wealthy foreigners and their children to position huge numbers of our aspiring young people as rent vassals in perpetuity.

And I speak as the co-owner of a property close to London that's probably making more money per week than I do.

It's just wrong. It's just not conservative, and what's more it's not sustainable. All our aspiring and hard working young people should be given a crack of the whip , its the least we owe them.

AS our predecessors handed down freedom to us, we should hand down our children at the least the chance to own their own homes.

We should be charging wealthy foreigners through the nose.

Neil

Wow, fewer than half the number of parties that stood last time. I think the absence of Pensioners / No2EU / Christians / Libertas etc. will on balance be relatively good for UKIP.

rcs1000

anotherDave said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

Where would you put EFTA membership? That was the route recommended by the IEA Brexit prize winner.

http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation

That's (2).

I'm quite happy to go for EFTA membership, which is like 'EU'-lite. We don't pay so much, we have control of our own agriculture and fisheries, and we continue to have seamless access to the EU's single market. The downside of (2) is that it means - like Norway - that we end up implementing a lot of EU policy, and having no say on it. (Although, unlike with Norway, they need us more than the other way round, and we may find we have more leverage with one foot out the door.)

corporeal

malcolmg said:

corporeal said:

malcolmg said:

TheWatcher said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

DaemonBarber said:

CarlottaVance said:

I think Brown frames the debate well:


http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2014/04/scotlands-five-big-positives-excerpt-from-gordon-browns-speech-on-tuesday-22nd-april-2014/#sthash.Iirwy6PN.dpuf

To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.

Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign

Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?

Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan.
Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.

'we will build warships at Govan.'

For the Royal Navy?

That was Eck's fib.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-scotland-would-still-build-navy-ships-after-yes-vote.23976200

Malcolm.

Firstly you seem to often have a very aggressive nature on here, usually including some insult or other that makes you look bad rather than the people you're insulting.

Secondly, unless I misunderstand you you're saying that where the rUK will build warships is not dependent on the rUK, which is a rather bizarre claim.

Corporeal, Firstly , coming on here and insulting me when I have never said a word to you beggars belief. Secondly if I look bad to mealy mouthed insulting halfwits like you, then it is of no concern. Thirdly , where in your stupid deluded brain did you get that I said where the rumpUK will build ships is not dependent on the rUK. Learn to read before you start hurling insults you halfwitted big jessie.


PS: Hope that meets you caricature of me nicely.

You caricature yourself, and a high number of your comments seem to include insults.

This is what seemed to imply that the one that was dependent on rUK was EU membership based on their veto ability.

"Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid"

taffys

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

Britain 1914 Hmmn...hardly a utopia.

Have you read the accounts of the examinations of potential army recruits from that period??

The British authorities were alarmed about the desperately poor physical conditions of the fighting men they were sending into battle.

Men they gave not a jot about whilst they were making money out of all and sundry from all over the world and all over the empire. Until they were needed as cannon fodder that is.

rcs1000

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

FPT

I find it interesting that you don't believe that the government has any right to stop people entering sovereign territory of a nation, but strongly support the government stopping people entering private territory of a wealthy person. This view of rights happens to perfectly dovetail with the interests of high net worth individuals, such as yourself, who benefit from the cheap labour of mass immigration yet have their own wealthy enclaves to protect themselves from the negative effects.

Our own wealthy enclaves, which anyone can join by entering into a voluntary agreement with someone to provide housing.

My views have been quite constant on this for some time.

Recently, my old college came to me to ask for money. And they lady who came to me was making a big fuss about the children of alumni, and how they valued continuity, and all this.

And I was genuinely shocked. Why should my children have any advantage whatsoever. The job of my old college is not to end up perpetuating an old boys network, but to offer the best education to the best students in the world. It should strive to be the world's premier educational institution.

I feel the same about this country. I want it to be the best in the world, and the way it would be the best in the world will not be if a bunch of civil servants get to use bureaucracy and form filling to choose has the right to be here, but if people drag themselves here - even though they'll get nothing from the state for being here - to better themselves.

TGOHF

So which ones are the fruitcakes and which ones are the looneys ?

Grandiose

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

It is surely the freedom of movement of labour (in the "we wanted workers and we got people" sense) that is most controversial. EFTA and the EEA would subscribe to the four freedoms (fine, if as you do, that's a good thing - but very different to what I think many people would want).

Socrates

@rcs1000

"Voluntary agreements" that entirely depend on the amount of money you can afford to pay. i.e. a rich man's paradise, with a dog eat dog world of increasing inequality for everyone else.

If you genuinely think this country would be the best in the world if you told the entire population of the developing world they'd be allowed in as long as they get to these shores you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The cardboard box camps on Marble Arch would be repeated in every public space in southern England. Many of those that couldn't get jobs would resort to smuggling and other forms of crime. We'd have huge ethnic gangs from every nation in Africa. School places would no way keep up with the huge number of kids here. It's just obviously utter madness.

rcs1000

@taffys

I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian.

TheWatcher

corporeal said:

malcolmg said:

corporeal said:

malcolmg said:

TheWatcher said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

DaemonBarber said:

CarlottaVance said:

I think Brown frames the debate well:


http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2014/04/scotlands-five-big-positives-excerpt-from-gordon-browns-speech-on-tuesday-22nd-april-2014/#sthash.Iirwy6PN.dpuf

To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.

Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign

Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?

Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan.
Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.

'we will build warships at Govan.'

For the Royal Navy?

That was Eck's fib.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-scotland-would-still-build-navy-ships-after-yes-vote.23976200

Malcolm.

Firstly you seem to often have a very aggressive nature on here, usually including some insult or other that makes you look bad rather than the people you're insulting.

Secondly, unless I misunderstand you you're saying that where the rUK will build warships is not dependent on the rUK, which is a rather bizarre claim.

Corporeal, Firstly , coming on here and insulting me when I have never said a word to you beggars belief. Secondly if I look bad to mealy mouthed insulting halfwits like you, then it is of no concern. Thirdly , where in your stupid deluded brain did you get that I said where the rumpUK will build ships is not dependent on the rUK. Learn to read before you start hurling insults you halfwitted big jessie.


PS: Hope that meets you caricature of me nicely.

You caricature yourself, and a high number of your comments seem to include insults.

This is what seemed to imply that the one that was dependent on rUK was EU membership based on their veto ability.

"Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid"

The Scottish Caricature needs to lay off the drinking.

rcs1000

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

"Voluntary agreements" that entirely depend on the amount of money you can afford to pay. i.e. a rich man's paradise, with a dog eat dog world of increasing inequality for everyone else.

If you genuinely think this country would be the best in the world if you told the entire population of the developing world they'd be allowed in as long as they get to these shores you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The cardboard box camps on Marble Arch would be repeated in every public space in southern England. Many of those that couldn't get jobs would resort to smuggling and other forms of crime. We'd have huge ethnic gangs from every nation in Africa. School places would no way keep up with the huge number of kids here. It's just obviously utter madness.

Your argument continues to be based around the premise that people are economically irrational.

Why would people drag themselves half way around the world to die starving on the streets of London?

anotherDave

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

Where would you put EFTA membership? That was the route recommended by the IEA Brexit prize winner.

http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation

That's (2).

I'm quite happy to go for EFTA membership, which is like 'EU'-lite. We don't pay so much, we have control of our own agriculture and fisheries, and we continue to have seamless access to the EU's single market. The downside of (2) is that it means - like Norway - that we end up implementing a lot of EU policy, and having no say on it. (Although, unlike with Norway, they need us more than the other way round, and we may find we have more leverage with one foot out the door.)

It's not the same as EEA membership. Free movement of goods (except agricultural), capital, some services, but not labour.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Brexit Entry 170_final_bio_web.pdf

rcs1000

Grandiose said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

It is surely the freedom of movement of labour (in the "we wanted workers and we got people" sense) that is most controversial. EFTA and the EEA would subscribe to the four freedoms (fine, if as you do, that's a good thing - but very different to what I think many people would want).

I am genuinely shocked that people think they have some kind of god given right to choose who lives on this island.

It is as alien a concept to me as the idea that the government should be able to choose what hairstyles people are allowed.

taffys

''Voluntary agreements" that entirely depend on the amount of money you can afford to pay. i.e. a rich man's paradise, with a dog eat dog world of increasing inequality for everyone else.''

Except when the nation needs soldiers to be blown to bits in Afghanistan. In that situation, it will be necessary to lie about patriotism to the populace you have traduced in favour of wealthy foreigners.

Frankly I find attitude of RCS utterly repugnant.

isam

rcs1000 said:

@taffys

I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian.

Libertarianism isn't what you have described, because there would be big losers if your theory was implemented

Philip_Thompson

I think the effect of this could be getting really overstated here really. UKIP are quite well known and spoken of as UKIP, even aloud it is said as UKIP not as the UK Independence Party. It is easy to misread Literal Democrats as Liberal Democrats, being only one quite similar letter apart. It's really hard to misread An Independence from Europe as UKIP. Especially when UKIP is written both in full and as the acronym at the bottom.

rcs1000

anotherDave said:

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

Where would you put EFTA membership? That was the route recommended by the IEA Brexit prize winner.

http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation

That's (2).

I'm quite happy to go for EFTA membership, which is like 'EU'-lite. We don't pay so much, we have control of our own agriculture and fisheries, and we continue to have seamless access to the EU's single market. The downside of (2) is that it means - like Norway - that we end up implementing a lot of EU policy, and having no say on it. (Although, unlike with Norway, they need us more than the other way round, and we may find we have more leverage with one foot out the door.)

It's not the same as EEA membership. Free movement of goods (except agricultural), capital, some services, but not labour.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Brexit Entry 170_final_bio_web.pdf

To be honest, my biggest concern is not restricting mine, or other people's freedoms.

Therefore, if we lose freedom of labour, I'm not interested.

OblitusSumMe

How many votes for the Aardvark party?

rcs1000

taffys said:

''Voluntary agreements" that entirely depend on the amount of money you can afford to pay. i.e. a rich man's paradise, with a dog eat dog world of increasing inequality for everyone else.''

Except when the nation needs soldiers to be blown to bits in Afghanistan. In that situation, it will be necessary to lie about patriotism to the populace you have traduced in favour of wealthy foreigners.

Frankly I find attitude of RCS utterly repugnant.

Why does the nation need people to be blown to bits in Afghanistan?

rcs1000

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

@taffys

I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian.

Libertarianism isn't what you have described, because there would be big losers if your theory was implemented

Of course they'd be big losers.

That's OK.

We seem to want to have a situation where there are no losers. Guess what: the world changes. And you need to change with it. You need to get marketable skills.

The social safety nets we have put in place distort economic incentives, and entrench unemployment.

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

"Voluntary agreements" that entirely depend on the amount of money you can afford to pay. i.e. a rich man's paradise, with a dog eat dog world of increasing inequality for everyone else.

If you genuinely think this country would be the best in the world if you told the entire population of the developing world they'd be allowed in as long as they get to these shores you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The cardboard box camps on Marble Arch would be repeated in every public space in southern England. Many of those that couldn't get jobs would resort to smuggling and other forms of crime. We'd have huge ethnic gangs from every nation in Africa. School places would no way keep up with the huge number of kids here. It's just obviously utter madness.

Your argument continues to be based around the premise that people are economically irrational.

Why would people drag themselves half way around the world to die starving on the streets of London?

Firstly, there are reams of evidence that people are not economically rational, particularly those without much education in the developing world. All sorts of decisions they make in healthcare and education show they are not rational. And across much of the world, places like the UK and the USA are seen as being better for your fortunes than they actually are, partially because those who come and are successful tell everyone, while people that come and fail struggle to admit to being failures to those back home.

Secondly, I'm not saying most of those coming would die starving on the streets of London. Most of those coming would live a difficult subsistence existence. But it would be a more secure subsistence existence than living in the Congo or Zimbabwe, because we have basic law and order. It would still make life a much worse misery for existing British nationals.

taffys

I am genuinely shocked that people think they have some kind of god given right to choose who lives on this island.

Presumably then you would have immediately surrendered to Germany in 1940. If they want to come here in droves, why not let them?

If we are going to still use the concept of nationhood, and we do all the time, we owe something to the body of people who in one way or other subscribe to that nationhood.

anotherDave

The election is still several weeks away. Could UKIP appeal the use of "an independence from europe" party name, or the "UK independence now" slogan?

rcs1000

Having stirred up a hornet's nest, I'm now off...

AlastairMeeks

I'd be more worried about the colour scheme than the name. But since the public won't see that on the ballot paper, I doubt UKIP will lose many votes because of this party.

A similar stunt was tried in the recent Hungarian election, with parties cropping up with names confusingly like those of the main opposition. It didn't seem to have any impact.

TheWatcher

rcs1000 said:

taffys said:

''Voluntary agreements" that entirely depend on the amount of money you can afford to pay. i.e. a rich man's paradise, with a dog eat dog world of increasing inequality for everyone else.''

Except when the nation needs soldiers to be blown to bits in Afghanistan. In that situation, it will be necessary to lie about patriotism to the populace you have traduced in favour of wealthy foreigners.

Frankly I find attitude of RCS utterly repugnant.

Why does the nation need people to be blown to bits in Afghanistan?

To satisfy the needs of politicians.

isam

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

@taffys

I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian.

Libertarianism isn't what you have described, because there would be big losers if your theory was implemented

Of course they'd be big losers.

That's OK.

We seem to want to have a situation where there are no losers. Guess what: the world changes. And you need to change with it. You need to get marketable skills.

The social safety nets we have put in place distort economic incentives, and entrench unemployment.

Fair enough, but that isn't Libertarianism

old_labour

Maybe time for a 'United Kingdom Internationalist Party' or a 'Labor' party.

anotherDave

antifrank said:

I'd be more worried about the colour scheme than the name. But since the public won't see that on the ballot paper, I doubt UKIP will lose many votes because of this party.

A similar stunt was tried in the recent Hungarian election, with parties cropping up with names confusingly like those of the main opposition. It didn't seem to have any impact.

The "literal democrat" got 10,000 votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/255919.stm

AlastairMeeks

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

I'd be more worried about the colour scheme than the name. But since the public won't see that on the ballot paper, I doubt UKIP will lose many votes because of this party.

A similar stunt was tried in the recent Hungarian election, with parties cropping up with names confusingly like those of the main opposition. It didn't seem to have any impact.

The "literal democrat" got 10,000 votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/255919.stm

This isn't in the same league as "Literal Democrats". The Hungarian examples were.

UKIP don't have a monopoly on the word "independence", and "Europe" doesn't appear in its name at all.

Richard_Nabavi

More details here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27128417

What I'm not clear about is whether they are standing only in the SW region. The party name itself seems OK to me, albeit grammatically eccentric ('An Independence From Europe'), it's the strapline 'UK Independence Now' which is confusing. I'd have thought UKIP's complaint to the electoral commission should be upheld.

MikeSmithson

Richard_Nabavi said:

More details here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27128417

What I'm not clear about is whether they are standing only in the SW region. The party name itself seems OK to me, albeit grammatically eccentric ('An Independence From Europe'), it's the strapline 'UK Independence Now' which is confusing. I'd have thought UKIP's complaint to the electoral commission should be upheld.

My understanding is that they are putting up a slate of candidates in all nine English regions.

This is all down to Farage's style of leadership which has seen so many splits. Natrass was the deputy leader until he fell foul of Mr. Nigel.

foxinsoxuk

The splitter may believe that his is the real kipper. There have been all sorts of hijinks in the UKIP MEPs if one looks at the 2009 intake. Indeed one could make the case that they couldnt organise a booze up in a brewery, apart from Mr Farage himself who seems capable of a booze up wherever he travels.

isam said:

Hard to believe people like that are interested in democracy if they're prepared to literally trick people into voting for a party that they didn't mean to

MarkSenior

anotherDave said:

The election is still several weeks away. Could UKIP appeal the use of "an independence from europe" party name, or the "UK independence now" slogan?

The party was registered in June 2012 , any appeal/objection should have been made then .

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

@taffys

I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian.

Libertarianism isn't what you have described, because there would be big losers if your theory was implemented

Of course they'd be big losers.

That's OK.

We seem to want to have a situation where there are no losers. Guess what: the world changes. And you need to change with it. You need to get marketable skills.

The social safety nets we have put in place distort economic incentives, and entrench unemployment.

It's not about having no losers. It's about having a system that works for as many people as possible. A concept called "the general welfare" that classical liberals going back to Smith and Jefferson and all of the others believed in, but many of the 1% today ignore.

Yes, the world changes and we should adapt with it. But how does that justify imposing a system to enact more destructive change on the vast majority of the country?

Libertarians have this near-religious mentality of governance. They value a set of absolute ideals and want a purist version of them, despite no evidence existing that those absolute ideals improve human welfare. They refuse to acknowledge trade-offs in policies, always placing the simple set of ideals over everything else. And they remain utterly immune to the realities of evidence and history if any of their recommended policies cause misery when put into practice.

corporeal

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

@taffys

I'm not a conservative; I'm a libertarian.

Libertarianism isn't what you have described, because there would be big losers if your theory was implemented

Of course they'd be big losers.

That's OK.

We seem to want to have a situation where there are no losers. Guess what: the world changes. And you need to change with it. You need to get marketable skills.

The social safety nets we have put in place distort economic incentives, and entrench unemployment.

Fair enough, but that isn't Libertarianism

Mr Isam there are many flavours of libertarianism, at its far end it is more or less how rcs describes it.

Socrates

Richard_Nabavi said:

More details here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27128417

What I'm not clear about is whether they are standing only in the SW region. The party name itself seems OK to me, albeit grammatically eccentric ('An Independence From Europe'), it's the strapline 'UK Independence Now' which is confusing. I'd have thought UKIP's complaint to the electoral commission should be upheld.

The grammatical eccentricity is entirely designed to get to the top of the ballot paper. Why don't they list these parties randomly rather than in alphabetical order to prevent this bias? My old student union could do it.

AlastairMeeks

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

anotherDave

foxinsoxuk said:

The splitter may believe that his is the real kipper. There have been all sorts of hijinks in the UKIP MEPs if one looks at the 2009 intake. Indeed one could make the case that they couldnt organise a booze up in a brewery, apart from Mr Farage himself who seems capable of a booze up wherever he travels.

isam said:

Hard to believe people like that are interested in democracy if they're prepared to literally trick people into voting for a party that they didn't mean to

Have you recalibrated your 'UKIP have peaked' theory? They seem to have found a new peak.

anotherDave

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

Theuniondivvie

old_labour said:

Maybe time for a 'United Kingdom Internationalist Party' or a 'Labor' party.

Even a Labour party would be nice.

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

Grandiose said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

It is surely the freedom of movement of labour (in the "we wanted workers and we got people" sense) that is most controversial. EFTA and the EEA would subscribe to the four freedoms (fine, if as you do, that's a good thing - but very different to what I think many people would want).

I am genuinely shocked that people think they have some kind of god given right to choose who lives on this island.

It is as alien a concept to me as the idea that the government should be able to choose what hairstyles people are allowed.

I'm genuinely shocked that you're genuinely shocked.

TheWatcher

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

The People's Front of Judea, composed of the Pythons' characters, harangue their "rivals" with cries of "splitters" and stand vehemently opposed to the Judean People's Front, the Judean Popular People's Front, the Campaign for a Free Galilee, and the Popular Front of Judea (the last composed of a single old man, mocking the size of real revolutionary Trotskyist factions). The infighting among revolutionary organisations is demonstrated most dramatically when the PFJ attempts to kidnap Pontius Pilate's wife, but encounters agents of the Campaign for a Free Galilee, and the two factions begin a violent brawl over which of them conceived of the plan first. When Brian exhorts them to cease their fighting to struggle "against the common enemy," the revolutionaries stop and cry in unison, "the Judean People's Front!" However, they soon resume their fighting and, with two Roman legionnaires watching bemusedly, continue until Brian is left the only survivor, at which point he is captured.

Which one's Farage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian

corporeal

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

It'll be interesting to see how the electoral commission rule, in my completely inexpert opinion of five minutes consideration it'd be reasonable for them to keep the name but change/remove the description.

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

FPT

I find it interesting that you don't believe that the government has any right to stop people entering sovereign territory of a nation, but strongly support the government stopping people entering private territory of a wealthy person. This view of rights happens to perfectly dovetail with the interests of high net worth individuals, such as yourself, who benefit from the cheap labour of mass immigration yet have their own wealthy enclaves to protect themselves from the negative effects.

Our own wealthy enclaves, which anyone can join by entering into a voluntary agreement with someone to provide housing.

My views have been quite constant on this for some time.

Recently, my old college came to me to ask for money. And they lady who came to me was making a big fuss about the children of alumni, and how they valued continuity, and all this.

And I was genuinely shocked. Why should my children have any advantage whatsoever. The job of my old college is not to end up perpetuating an old boys network, but to offer the best education to the best students in the world. It should strive to be the world's premier educational institution.

I feel the same about this country. I want it to be the best in the world, and the way it would be the best in the world will not be if a bunch of civil servants get to use bureaucracy and form filling to choose has the right to be here, but if people drag themselves here - even though they'll get nothing from the state for being here - to better themselves.

Will you leave any property to your own children?

AlastairMeeks

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

Like Richard Nabavi, I'd be more concerned about the strapline than the party name. While I regard anyone who gets fixated on the EU as bonkers, I recognise that there are a lot of bonkers people. There's room for more than one anti-EU party. We saw earlier today that MaxPB was alienated by UKIP's current direction. Perhaps Mr Nattrass can appeal more to him.

We had No2EU covering similar ground from a leftwing perspective.

What's really irking the Kippers is that yet again we're seeing the consequences of UKIP being a party of egomaniacs.

Richard_Nabavi

I suppose it's too late to register the ConLibLab Metropolitan Elite Party?

CarlottaVance

I doubt it will cause much confusion - but it will give the Kippers something else to get cross about!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Me, he narrowly beat the Aardwolf party's representative.

taffys

I suppose it's too late to register the ConLibLab Metropolitan Elite Party?

Or the SNP (Scottish Naturist Party).

Saying Yes here....

TOPPING

rcs1000 said:

Having stirred up a hornet's nest, I'm now off...

And then...moments later...Mike appears.

EVS Smithson Jnr has been sent to his room.

Sean_F

On topic, it seems like twattish behaviour from someone who can't bear the idea that his political career is at an end.

anotherDave

taffys said:

Or the SNP (Scottish Naturist Party).

Saying Yes here....

Hamish and Dougal?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Taffys, that'd be after, alphabetically. The Scottish Natianalist Party would be better.

MikeK

Patrick O'Flynn
@oflynndirector

UKIP membership still going up at a rate of knots - just been confirmed to me at 36,501. - 23 Apr

mike kaye
@atmikekayes3

@oflynndirector What r u going to do about"An Independence from Europe party" being on top of the ballot? Will u go to the electo commision?

Patrick O'Flynn
@oflynndirector

@atmikekayes3 Yes. Party chairman is with them now.

Lennon

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, he narrowly beat the Aardwolf party's representative.

Hmm... maybe the Pirate Party should rename to Aaargh - Here Be Pirates or similar.

Socrates

Sean_F said:

On topic, it seems like twattish behaviour from someone who can't bear the idea that his political career is at an end.

You have a knack for accurate and pithy summations of a situation.

NickPalmer

Seems pretty sleazy to me - if I was UKIP I'd be really quite annoyed that the Electoral Commission let it through.

BTW, the debate with rcs on this thread has been an enjoyable example of the mind-widening effect of pb. It's always a pleasure to meet people with fully-thought out, consistent views, even if they are very different from the usual. It's like meeting someone who has decorated their house to look exactly like a Buddhist temple - you might not want to do it, but it's fascinating to see.

isam

antifrank said:

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

Like Richard Nabavi, I'd be more concerned about the strapline than the party name. While I regard anyone who gets fixated on the EU as bonkers, I recognise that there are a lot of bonkers people. There's room for more than one anti-EU party. We saw earlier today that MaxPB was alienated by UKIP's current direction. Perhaps Mr Nattrass can appeal more to him.

We had No2EU covering similar ground from a leftwing perspective.

What's really irking the Kippers is that yet again we're seeing the consequences of UKIP being a party of egomaniacs.

What we are seeing is people that support LD/Cons/Lab not being fussed about something that they would go nuts about if it were their party

@JosiasJessop aside

Richard_Nabavi

Of course we mustn't forget the colourful Nikki Sinclair and the We Demand a Referendum Now Party.

anotherDave

MikeK said:

Patrick O'Flynn
@oflynndirector

UKIP membership still going up at a rate of knots - just been confirmed to me at 36,501. - 23 Apr

!!

It was only two days ago that they announced 36,000 members.

twitter.com/UKIP/status/458239253043249152

Lennon

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

On topic, it seems like twattish behaviour from someone who can't bear the idea that his political career is at an end.

You have a knack for accurate and pithy summations of a situation.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree - it is worth noting that he has sufficient supporters willing to stand as candidates to be able to (by appearances) stand a full slate in all regions - which would suggest more of an organisation than just a 1-man band.

AveryLP

It is entirely reasonable for Mike Natrass to call his new party what he wishes as long as it is not identical in name to UKIP.

What is demonstrably unfair though is that Natrass is not accorded a place in the TV Leaders' debates.

Perhaps UKIP should have a preliminary knockout competition between all their splinter groups to decide who goes through to the debates with other leaders.

Seems the fairest way to do it.

corporeal

isam said:

antifrank said:

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

Like Richard Nabavi, I'd be more concerned about the strapline than the party name. While I regard anyone who gets fixated on the EU as bonkers, I recognise that there are a lot of bonkers people. There's room for more than one anti-EU party. We saw earlier today that MaxPB was alienated by UKIP's current direction. Perhaps Mr Nattrass can appeal more to him.

We had No2EU covering similar ground from a leftwing perspective.

What's really irking the Kippers is that yet again we're seeing the consequences of UKIP being a party of egomaniacs.

What we are seeing is people that support LD/Cons/Lab not being fussed about something that they would go nuts about if it were their party

@JosiasJessop aside

Mr Isam, several people have said that the name is different enough but the strapline should be changed.

What are you after? Rending of clothing and wailing to the heavens in outrage?

Pulpstar

Lennon said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, he narrowly beat the Aardwolf party's representative.

Hmm... maybe the Pirate Party should rename to Aaargh - Here Be Pirates or similar.

Are the pirates standing (sailing ?) in the Euros ?

david_herdson

Socrates said:

On topic, what is the bloody point of the electoral commission if they don't stop this obvious masquerading for votes that are meant for another party?

Indeed. Though I agree with antifrank and Richard N that the name itself should be ok; it's the strapline that's objectionable. As an aside, why are straplines needed on the ballot paper anyway? It's not as if Euro-ballots are short of text.

On a practical point, I'd have thought that many UKIP voters will check their papers from the bottom up, so may skip past AIFE without even noticing it.

Socrates

On more important matters, I see Russia is now threatening to invade Ukraine to protect its "interests", i.e. its military forces there in unofficial uniforms:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27124453

This is a defining moment for our leaders. Will they tolerate an aggressive invasion of a sovereign state that has done nothing to warrant wrong? Ukraine changed presidents through a constitutional supermajority vote of parliament. They are not guilty of contravening non-proliferation efforts - in fact they gave up their nuclear weapons. They have not suppressed the ethnic minority, and have used remarkable restraint as foreign elements have taken over their territory.

When we have a pro-Western country that is doing its best to act correctly and as we would want them to, and they are invaded by an expansionist aggressor seeking to annex their territory, do we stand by them, or do we abandon them?

David Cameron spoke about this country's morality at the weekend. Where is his moral clarity in this situation? Let us judge a man by his actions, not by his words.

Lennon

Pulpstar said:

Lennon said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, he narrowly beat the Aardwolf party's representative.

Hmm... maybe the Pirate Party should rename to Aaargh - Here Be Pirates or similar.

Are the pirates standing (sailing ?) in the Euros ?

Yes - but only in the North-West Region unfortunately.

surbiton

We need to save the countryside from wind farms etc.

I am starting a new party: The CONSERVATION party.

Or, is there one already ?

david_herdson

rcs1000 said:

Grandiose said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Socrates said:

@rcs1000

I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:

(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects

(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics

(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary

You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)

My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:

1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.

2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.

3. The current situation.

4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.

I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.

It is surely the freedom of movement of labour (in the "we wanted workers and we got people" sense) that is most controversial. EFTA and the EEA would subscribe to the four freedoms (fine, if as you do, that's a good thing - but very different to what I think many people would want).

I am genuinely shocked that people think they have some kind of god given right to choose who lives on this island.

It is as alien a concept to me as the idea that the government should be able to choose what hairstyles people are allowed.

It's not a God-given right; it's the right of sovereignty, which is a distinctly human and common one. And parliament could choose what hairstyles people are allowed, should it be daft enough to. (The crown in) Parliament is theoretically absolutely sovereign.

anotherDave

david_herdson said:

Socrates said:

On topic, what is the bloody point of the electoral commission if they don't stop this obvious masquerading for votes that are meant for another party?

Indeed. Though I agree with antifrank and Richard N that the name itself should be ok; it's the strapline that's objectionable. As an aside, why are straplines needed on the ballot paper anyway? It's not as if Euro-ballots are short of text.

On a practical point, I'd have thought that many UKIP voters will check their papers from the bottom up, so may skip past AIFE without even noticing it.

I believe party logos are included on the ballots to help prevent mischief like this. That should help.

foxinsoxuk

The Liberal party coexisted on ballot papers for some years with the LibDems. Farage came third to a candidate in the speakers seat who ran as an independent conservative. There is precedent. Just as this whole issue highlights how shambolic the UKIP MEPs were when they actually got elected.

Golf is a great game apart from the people who play it, and UKIP has many of the same problems as a party, fine apart from the people elected under its banner. How is that Mr Hamilton getting on with the campaign?

isam said:

antifrank said:

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

Like Richard Nabavi, I'd be more concerned about the strapline than the party name. While I regard anyone who gets fixated on the EU as bonkers, I recognise that there are a lot of bonkers people. There's room for more than one anti-EU party. We saw earlier today that MaxPB was alienated by UKIP's current direction. Perhaps Mr Nattrass can appeal more to him.

We had No2EU covering similar ground from a leftwing perspective.

What's really irking the Kippers is that yet again we're seeing the consequences of UKIP being a party of egomaniacs.

What we are seeing is people that support LD/Cons/Lab not being fussed about something that they would go nuts about if it were their party

@JosiasJessop aside

SimonStClare

‘The party was established in 2012 by Mike Natrass, an ex-UKIP MEP and former deputy leader’

The scoundrel - is there no honour amongst thieves…?

Financier

Mrs Clegg shows Nick who is boss.

Fathers who look after their children have “more cojones” and only “dinosaurs” think men shouldn’t share childcare, Miriam Clegg has said.

Nick Clegg’s wife, who is a high profile lawyer, interrupted her husband’s press conference to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to take a public stand for men who look after their children.

In a rare move, which will be seen as highly political, Mrs Clegg took the microphone at the launch of Cityfathers to demand that “modern working fathers” announce "loudly and proudly" that taking responsibility for your own children does not “affect your level of testosterone. “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10783004/Miriam-Clegg-men-who-look-after-children-have-more-cojones.html

Smarmeron

The Party Party?
You gotta fight...for your right....to party!?

(they had heavy metal in the first world war....they called it shrapnel)

eek

From the previous thread in case MalcolmG is still around

malcolmg said:

The future will tell whether it is a fact or not , at present it is an educated opinion and may well become a fact or not as the case may be. Just because a loser like yourself does not like it does not make it an untruth.

Glad to see you around. Is this educated opinion the same one that thinks the new Statesman is gospel when it comes to economics.... or is that just a similar case where the education is classics but the opinion subject is theoretical quantum mechanics...

Lennon

surbiton said:

We need to save the countryside from wind farms etc.

I am starting a new party: The CONSERVATION party.

Or, is there one already ?

Not that I can see on the Electoral Commission website, although intriguingly there is a Magna Carta Conservation Party

Slackbladder

I would say the name of the party is borderline ok, but the tagline is clearly there to mislead, and that is questionable.

david_herdson

Sean_F said:

On topic, it seems like twattish behaviour from someone who can't bear the idea that his political career is at an end.

I'd have thought it quite an expensive form of revenge, though maybe quite an effective one. What's the deposit for a Euroconstituency?

Lennon

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

On topic, it seems like twattish behaviour from someone who can't bear the idea that his political career is at an end.

I'd have thought it quite an expensive form of revenge, though maybe quite an effective one. What's the deposit for a Euroconstituency?

£5000 per region. So assuming you stand in all English regions (ie not Scotland, Wales or NI) then £45,000 just for the deposits.

JosiasJessop

Smarmeron said:

The Party Party?
You gotta fight...for your right....to party!?

(they had heavy metal in the first world war....they called it shrapnel)

For builders of high-density properties: The Party Wall Party.

For meatatarians: The Pâté Party.

For the geniuses (obviously all of PB): The Smarty Party.

For winners of the Turner Prize: The Arty Party.

My coat's suddenly flown towards me ...

volcanopete

It is not unreasonable to assume many UKIP voters wear glasses on account of their age demographic.It is also not unreasonable to assume the amount of paperwork undertaken by UKIP voters is probably limited too,perhaps enough to apply for a bus pass and then collect any bus tickets obtained subsequently.Taking these 2 things into account,when a UKIP voter is confronted with paperwork,in this case putting an x on a piece of paper,they will immediately reach for their glasses,through which they will read every word because paperwork is designed to confuse.Therefore,I conclude UKIP have nothing to worry about whatsoever but it may help to issue any polling station tellers with some of those cheap £2 pairs of glasses.I remember Albert Steptoe had quite a collection.

isam

corporeal said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

Like Richard Nabavi, I'd be more concerned about the strapline than the party name. While I regard anyone who gets fixated on the EU as bonkers, I recognise that there are a lot of bonkers people. There's room for more than one anti-EU party. We saw earlier today that MaxPB was alienated by UKIP's current direction. Perhaps Mr Nattrass can appeal more to him.

We had No2EU covering similar ground from a leftwing perspective.

What's really irking the Kippers is that yet again we're seeing the consequences of UKIP being a party of egomaniacs.

What we are seeing is people that support LD/Cons/Lab not being fussed about something that they would go nuts about if it were their party

@JosiasJessop aside

Mr Isam, several people have said that the name is different enough but the strapline should be changed.

What are you after? Rending of clothing and wailing to the heavens in outrage?

As you seem to respond to almost every post I make, shall we make it fun?

Ill post the intro to a joke and you do the punchline?

Bloke walks cuts off the end of his trousers and throws it into a library...

david_herdson

foxinsoxuk said:

The Liberal party coexisted on ballot papers for some years with the LibDems. Farage came third to a candidate in the speakers seat who ran as an independent conservative. There is precedent. Just as this whole issue highlights how shambolic the UKIP MEPs were when they actually got elected.

Golf is a great game apart from the people who play it, and UKIP has many of the same problems as a party, fine apart from the people elected under its banner. How is that Mr Hamilton getting on with the campaign?

isam said:

antifrank said:

anotherDave said:

antifrank said:

Isn't there a pleasing irony that UKIP supporters, who always bang on about all their opponents being the same, are getting really upset that there's another party that's seeking to look like UKIP?

You're a lawyer. Isn't this more an attempt to pass themselves off as UKIP?

Like Richard Nabavi, I'd be more concerned about the strapline than the party name. While I regard anyone who gets fixated on the EU as bonkers, I recognise that there are a lot of bonkers people. There's room for more than one anti-EU party. We saw earlier today that MaxPB was alienated by UKIP's current direction. Perhaps Mr Nattrass can appeal more to him.

We had No2EU covering similar ground from a leftwing perspective.

What's really irking the Kippers is that yet again we're seeing the consequences of UKIP being a party of egomaniacs.

What we are seeing is people that support LD/Cons/Lab not being fussed about something that they would go nuts about if it were their party

@JosiasJessop aside

The (post-1989) Liberals were able to keep that name because the rules let them at the time, and have been able to keep it since they're an established party pre-existing the revised and tightened rules.

The candidate who finished second in Buckingham in 2010 - who was at one time a Conservative MEP - stood as "Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy". IIRC, a candidate who stands as 'Independent' cannot qualify it in any way.

surbiton

volcanopete said:

It is not unreasonable to assume many UKIP voters wear glasses on account of their age demographic.It is also not unreasonable to assume the amount of paperwork undertaken by UKIP voters is probably limited too,perhaps enough to apply for a bus pass and then collect any bus tickets obtained subsequently.Taking these 2 things into account,when a UKIP voter is confronted with paperwork,in this case putting an x on a piece of paper,they will immediately reach for their glasses,through which they will read every word because paperwork is designed to confuse.Therefore,I conclude UKIP have nothing to worry about whatsoever but it may help to issue any polling station tellers with some of those cheap £2 pairs of glasses.I remember Albert Steptoe had quite a collection.

Maybe, a pair of spectacles should be the UKIP symbol ! It would be appropriate.

AndyJS

Usual practice would have been for the party to have been listed under "I" as "Independence from Europe, An"

JosiasJessop

volcanopete said:

It is not unreasonable to assume many UKIP voters wear glasses on account of their age demographic.It is also not unreasonable to assume the amount of paperwork undertaken by UKIP voters is probably limited too,perhaps enough to apply for a bus pass and then collect any bus tickets obtained subsequently.Taking these 2 things into account,when a UKIP voter is confronted with paperwork,in this case putting an x on a piece of paper,they will immediately reach for their glasses,through which they will read every word because paperwork is designed to confuse.Therefore,I conclude UKIP have nothing to worry about whatsoever but it may help to issue any polling station tellers with some of those cheap £2 pairs of glasses.I remember Albert Steptoe had quite a collection.

Heh. If the election literature allows Unicode, we could have fun. Different characters can be rendered almost exactly the same way, so you could have a 'UKIP Party' and a 'UKİP Party', where the I has a dot above it. Or a 'UKƖP Party', where the I is a Greek Iota.

Obviously totally different names. ;-)

I'd be amazed if such a thing got past the authorities...

AveryLP

Have nominations for the EP elections closed?

I thought Professor Alan Sked was planning a centre-left Brexit party, perhaps called UK'IP.

Or what about Godfrey Bloom? Will he not be creating his own 'Independent UKIP'.

Or what of Lord Monckton, former Leader of the Scottish section of UKIP? Will his "wiped out" section rise from the ashes?

Or what of Kilroy-Silk? Will Veritas contest 2014?

Or Nikki Sinclaire?

UKIP have so many splinter groups it is difficult to know which party is real and original.

Steven_Whaley

I always read the whole ballot paper before I make my mark on it. Anyone who doesn't do so really has no right to moan if they vote for the wrong party. I really can't see this making much difference - unless some of the UKIP voters get too much froth from their mouths working its way up into their eyes.

TheWatcher

surbiton said:

volcanopete said:

It is not unreasonable to assume many UKIP voters wear glasses on account of their age demographic.It is also not unreasonable to assume the amount of paperwork undertaken by UKIP voters is probably limited too,perhaps enough to apply for a bus pass and then collect any bus tickets obtained subsequently.Taking these 2 things into account,when a UKIP voter is confronted with paperwork,in this case putting an x on a piece of paper,they will immediately reach for their glasses,through which they will read every word because paperwork is designed to confuse.Therefore,I conclude UKIP have nothing to worry about whatsoever but it may help to issue any polling station tellers with some of those cheap £2 pairs of glasses.I remember Albert Steptoe had quite a collection.

Maybe, a pair of spectacles should be the UKIP symbol !

With a couple of swivel eyes in them, whose gaze follows the voter around the booth.

Neil

@isam

That's a turn up for the books!