Britannist

Yes - people are rightly concerned about immigration. There were some who wanted UKIP to avoid discussing immigration and I opposed this attempt to go quiet on a subject so important to voters. Had UKIP had a stronger anti-immigration policy at the last General Election I believe the party could have increased its vote substantially (well above the 2.3% of the national vote UKIP got at the last General Election). One opinion poll showed that 52% of immigrants in the UK want strict immigration controls to be implemented here).

The new UKIP policy of stopping all immigration for five years has the potential to become very popular when voters become aware of it. And voters will hear of the new policy when UKIP leaflets begin to reach millions of people in due course.

blueblood1920

So it is also possible to say that on current trends and with this system the BNP will get a seat in westminster before UKIP. Now what is UKIP goal? EU seats or Westminster seats? Do I need to say anymore?

For_England

That policy could make or break the party. You have the advantage that people will actually believe you, whereas I doubt any promises made by the Conservatives will ever be taken seriously.

blueblood1920

I do not buy that at all, UKIP compared to the other small parties have had masisve coverage. UKIP are on some show at least once every three weeks, where do you see BNP or EDP on TV?
On these immigration debates its UKIP that is getting invited to debate even when they was discussing the 'British Jobs for British Workers' which all the MP's and media were accusing brown of stealing from the BNP it was UKIP (NIgel) who got invited to the debate not the BNP.

So when you look at the coverage UKIP are getting compared to parties like the BNP and Green who got 1% more than UKIP then UKIP are doing badly and need a change if they are to survive.

Either UKIP as a brand and movement are dead or the leadership are usless and exhusted and need to go.

Britannist

There's no doubt that the results for UKIP in local By-Elections are not good. This cannot be denied. I have long called for UKIP to start up a special local government campaigning section but it has not happened yet. One UKIP chap who helps organise the party's local government campaigning has said (quite rightly) that this all costs money.

As I wrote a little earlier, I think UKIP may be reserving some of its resources for the next EU Election where it has a notional ten or eleven seats to defend in constituencies with a reduced number of places. The campaign for the next EU Election will begin formally for all parties in only sixteen or seventeen months' time and it is an election more winnable for UKIP because of the voting system used than local elections are in England and Wales.

kernow

True! But thankfully Joe and Jane Public are still just bright enough not to vote into power a completely racist party like the BNP!

Britannist

Major (the former so-called europhile 'Conservative' Prime Minister) allowed at least two amnesties for illegal immigrants (I believe) during his time in office. This was a foolish thing of Major to have done - he was never strong on immigration control in the way that he should have been.

However, immigration was much lower under the Major regime - it soon shot up and has stayed high since this Labour shower got in.

Labour hopes and expects many of the one million people it has given UK passports to over this last decade to express their gratitude for being allowed to come here (without the clear permission of the British people) by voting Labour in return.

There is no doubt that the UKIP claim to halt immigration for five years will be believed by the electorate (as you say above, For England) - the voters are right to detect that UKIP means what it says.

Many people would want, after five years, the ban on immigration to be extended further - or even made permanent (except for cases where highly-skilled immigrants are let into the UK on a temporary basis).

Britannist

I cannot predict when UKIP would win a seat in the House of Commons - or if another party might 'get there' before UKIP. But what I do know is this - UKIP is not yet targeting any UK Parliamentary constituency - but when it does so (and I have been calling on it to do so for some time) and when it starts campaigning seriously in three or four target seats, it stands a good chance of winning. This is more likely to happen if/when UKIP starts campaigning vigorously in local elections and local By-Elections in its target constituencies.

For the BNP to win a seat in the EU 'Parliament' it needs to have a support level of about 7% (possibly 8% or even 9%) across the whole of an individual UK EU Election constituency. Its chances of winning a seat in an EU Election constituency would also depend on the performance of the other parties (i.e. how many votes they take from each other and how the overall ranking is affected). This, of course, applies to all parties.

For instance, if the Green Party doesn't get enough votes to win a seat in a particular EU Election constituency but splits the vote of the Liberal 'Democrats' anyway - it could cost the Liberal Dims the bottom place (of those elected) in that seat and allow the BNP to take the bottom seat in the ranking (of those elected in that particular EU Election constituency) instead.

Britannist

Both. The first of the two has been achieved and UKIP will vigorously defend what it already has when the time comes.

blueblood1920

When will that time come? Are the UKIP leadership enjoying the gravy train the EU offers and dont want to wasit time and money on westminster while they have it cosy in brussels?

The last two parlimentary by-elections were terrible for UKIP, even worse for the EDP. However if UKIP wants to be seen as a proper force in British politics it should of put more effort in and achieved a much better results than it did.