UKIP's appeal has nothing to do with its policies.
Stupidest remark of the day. Well done.
Not really. I know lots of Kippers, including my uncle, who was on the Penzance UKIP executive. Obviously they like the general drift of the policies, but primarily they like the flavour - resolutely non-PC and no-nonsense. As we've seen with UKIP supporters here, they ascribe to the party what they hope it will become, rather than what it is. I think most UKIP voters wouldn't have been especially bothered by Bloom's latest weirdness - Farage should probably have shrugged it off.
But you're agreeing with me. I don't think Kippers examine the manifesto, they like the general *sound* of the policies. And the burqa ban, however trivial, was deeply emblematic of that "sound".
If it percolates down to General Voter Consciousness that UKIP have reversed this - and it might easily, especially if people ceaselessly blog about it, say, on the Telegraph - then it will damage them.
Add that to the Bloomsday Disaster and I see a declining UKIP polling trend. What's the point in a non-PC party that is, actually, really rather PC but is a bit pretendy?
But it may well be that the UKIP vote is actually predominantly people who want a bit of fruitcake, and dislike any hint of moderaiton and compromise.
Alternatively, it may be that Any Publicity Is Good Publicity. We shall see, very shortly.
Parties can also have the right enemies. If MPs, TV luvvies and foreign politicos all loathe UKIP, they must be good eggs.
UKIP need to figure out how to deal with the incoming media smear campaign.
1) The electronic media are dominated by europhile metropolitan liberals who are guaranteed to be hostile to anti-EU party. 2) They'll attack on the race issue. 3) If UKIP accept the media's right to judge them then they've lost because as soon as they do that it gives the electronic media the power to herd them into PC-land with the rest of the political parties
So they can't give an inch.
Bloom's instincts were right. Whenever a representative of the media tries to assume a position of moral superiority then attack them (verbally) back along a moral line but those counter-attacks need to be thought about in advance not off the cuff.
It's a simple cost/benefit thing. The benefit part from the media's point of view is they want to smear UKIP but if UKIP speakers make the cost part of the equation higher by always responding by saying things the media don't want the public to hear then they'll stop and try another tactic. Treat it like training a puppy.
So whenever the media or political class attack on the race issue (the important bit psychologically is they're implicitly claiming moral superiority) ignore their question and say something which they don't want the public to hear.
The only reason there's 500 of these rather than 50 is the political and media class won't admit it's happening. The 450 that wouldn't be happening if the police could do something about it are on the hands of the political and media class. So whenever one of these ****s from the BBC or Channel 4 go on the moral offensive drag then down in the gutter where they belong.
I thought Godfrey Bloom vs Michael Crick yesterday was the most entertaining thing in British politics for about 15 years.
More please.
Agree but given it currently looks like the media are going to go all out on the smear front then off the cuff responses won't hold the line long-term imo.
I expect UKIP's poll rating to remain about the same as before.
I think it'll go up, at least in the polls that don't prompt for them. They have a substantial latent vote that depends on the voters remembering that they exist, not on the voters liking or disliking them.
@MrJones It's a tricky one. They can definitely get sympathy for the media being out to get them. I'm just not sure whether they should try to genially laugh it off or go the full Galloway with a full-throated attack on the interviewer, like:
@MrJones It's a tricky one. They can definitely get sympathy for the media being out to get them. I'm just not sure whether they should try to genially laugh it off or go the full Galloway with a full-throated attack on the interviewer, like:
It's difficult and maybe impossible to get right but i don't think it's tricky really. Either they accept the media's right to judge or they don't. If they do then it leads to being gradually herded into PC-land with the rest of the parties. If they don't they have to attack.
I don't know what the net polling effect will be - the crick bit positive - the sluts bit negative - Farage's response if it was associated with the sluts bit positive - Farage's response if it was associated with the Crick bit negative - Farage looking flustered negative
It might do something or nothing and get a recognition boost regardless. dunno
Comments
LOL. One of Labour's best self-serving, ambitious, self-publicists, you mean...
http://bit.ly/Xb3122
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-160.htm
UKIP need to figure out how to deal with the incoming media smear campaign.
1) The electronic media are dominated by europhile metropolitan liberals who are guaranteed to be hostile to anti-EU party.
2) They'll attack on the race issue.
3) If UKIP accept the media's right to judge them then they've lost because as soon as they do that it gives the electronic media the power to herd them into PC-land with the rest of the political parties
So they can't give an inch.
Bloom's instincts were right. Whenever a representative of the media tries to assume a position of moral superiority then attack them (verbally) back along a moral line but those counter-attacks need to be thought about in advance not off the cuff.
It's a simple cost/benefit thing. The benefit part from the media's point of view is they want to smear UKIP but if UKIP speakers make the cost part of the equation higher by always responding by saying things the media don't want the public to hear then they'll stop and try another tactic. Treat it like training a puppy.
So whenever the media or political class attack on the race issue (the important bit psychologically is they're implicitly claiming moral superiority) ignore their question and say something which they don't want the public to hear.
There's lot of options but for example
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
The only reason there's 500 of these rather than 50 is the political and media class won't admit it's happening. The 450 that wouldn't be happening if the police could do something about it are on the hands of the political and media class. So whenever one of these ****s from the BBC or Channel 4 go on the moral offensive drag then down in the gutter where they belong.
More please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LD956agi5U
- the crick bit positive
- the sluts bit negative
- Farage's response if it was associated with the sluts bit positive
- Farage's response if it was associated with the Crick bit negative
- Farage looking flustered negative
It might do something or nothing and get a recognition boost regardless. dunno