Nigel Farage MEP

The Corinthian

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Stop with the nonsense arguments. They will be considered to have won the European election in the UK if they win within the UK which is the only place they are running in.

By illiterates.

Winning an election means securing a majority of the seats; either overall or via a coalition. You can become the biggest group, or make great gains on your last election - both of which are achievements - but unless you can succeed in attaining a majority, then you don't win.

Those who consider otherwise are either partisans who wish to exaggerate the meaning of a result and/or uneducated where it comes to how democracy works.

From most of the non-partisan analysis going around, the UKIP have made significant gains but overall failed to achieve any kind of majority (not that the UKIP get one even if it won every UK seat) and it is unlikely that their increased numbers will make much difference to the direction the European parliament will take.

It's also a result that has been long predicted, not only because of the current disquiet over the EU in the UK, but also because - like the local elections - it's a pretty typical protest vote against an unpopular government, mid-way between general elections.

Morgans

Scofflaw wrote: »

None of that has anything to do with leadership, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What would you class as leadership? For me, leadership is recognising how things could be better for a group of people, and accepting responsibility to do what you can to bring about that change.

Farage has shown greater vision and is bringing about the change than any politician in England. You can definitely argue whether the reality UKIP wish to bring about is in fact an improvement on what is currently in place. But he has done more than any other politician to shape the political environment towards his and his party's vision.

That the major UK parties are attempting to challenge Farage's vision of the future UK, or are work to win back voters persuaded by Farage's vision, suggests that his leadership is very strong. Even more so if accepting your own argument that he is UKIP.

dlouth15

Good article from the BBC:

What UKIP victory means

It is over 100 years since a national election has been won by a party other than the Conservatives and Labour.

What's more the UK Independence Party did it by winning seats not just in every region of England but in Wales and Scotland too.

The impact of the result will be immediate.

David Cameron will face pressure to harden up his promise to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU and to reduce immigration to win back the many Tory voters lost to UKIP.

Ed Miliband will face an inquest into why before the votes of Londoners were counted Labour were only neck and neck with the Tories.

And Nick Clegg will face demands to explain what can save his party if it is not a change of leadership.

Alex Salmond will have to confront the fact that he failed in his aim of ensuring that Scotland was a UKIP-free zone. However, he'll use the result to urge Scots to break free from the anti European forces which topped the poll in England.

Only Nigel Farage can be totally satisfied today although he knows all too well that winning a national election which he described as a "free hit" on the political establishment is much easier than winning a single seat in Westminster.

A year ago few took that prospect seriously. They do now.

Scofflaw

Morgans wrote: »

What would you class as leadership? For me, leadership is recognising how things could be better for a group of people, and accepting responsibility to do what you can to bring about that change.

Farage has shown greater vision and is bringing about the change than any politician in England. You can definitely argue whether the reality UKIP wish to bring about is in fact an improvement on what is currently in place. But he has done more than any other politician to shape the political environment towards his and his party's vision.

That the major UK parties are attempting to challenge Farage's vision of the future UK, or are work to win back voters persuaded by Farage's vision, suggests that his leadership is very strong. Even more so if accepting your own argument that he is UKIP.

Well, you've used the word I would use there - 'vision'. I might not like or agree with the vision of Britain that Farage conjures up, but it's a powerful one, and he articulates it well. It's by no means original, of course, indeed something of a classic - even the use of 'Britain', with its unspoken 'Great' and its sentimental old-fashioned overtones, is a regular part of such nostalgic hankerings.

Has he shown any actual ability to lead the British people there? Not a bit, I think - he hasn't even shown the ability to lead his own party there without conjuring up the dark side of the vision that he's supposed to wish to avoid. The British people certainly aren't any nearer it, but then, realistically, they never can be - at most, what can Farage deliver? Leaving the EU will not recreate postwar Britain except perhaps economically - and postwar Britain was desperate to join the EU for that reason.

I don't know. If someone could deliver a culturally "British" Britain somehow cured of sink estates, anomie, excess security, dependence on murky financial wealth, a decayed North, bloated South, and an increasingly gilded oligarchy, deliver an England of cricket on the village green, vicarage teas, summers by the seaside, wealth from trade and industry, but devoid of racism and xenophobia, I'd take my hat off to them (I'd put one on specifically to do so). Do I think Farage will deliver it? No. Is he even going the right away about it? Not that I can see. I think he's trading on fear and distrust, and he's selling a mirage of a past that never really was and never can be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lastlight.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That will get you the answer "but Farage is married to a German" as if that proved UKIP doesn't run on xenophobia.

There's probably some kind of scale on which you can place UKIP relatively exactly:

1. they don't like unfamiliar foreigners at all - not even European ones like Romanians.

2. they dislike "familiar foreigners" (like the Germans) less, but...

3. ...they don't like them en masse

4. ...they don't want to have to trust them in a cooperative framework

I'm not sure about racism as such, but the above reflects the policy position of the party.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Which if what you say has any basing on reality, then millions of people agree with him and UKIP. That is why they won a national election.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

By illiterates.

Winning an election means securing a majority of the seats; either overall or via a coalition. You can become the biggest group, or make great gains on your last election - both of which are achievements - but unless you can succeed in attaining a majority, then you don't win.

Those who consider otherwise are either partisans who wish to exaggerate the meaning of a result and/or uneducated where it comes to how democracy works.

Associated press: "Ed Miliband Urged To Support EU Referendum After Ukip Wins European Elections"

Reuters: "UKIP poised for victory in Europe vote"

New Statesman: "Ukip has won the European elections"

Reuters again: "Results for Europe vote in Britain confirm win for UKIP party"

Japan Times: "UKIP victorious in EU vote"

Daily Mirror: "UKIP is still on course to win European elections despite disastrous week for Nigel Farage"

....

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

Associated press: "Ed Miliband Urged To Support EU Referendum After Ukip Wins European Elections"

Reuters: "UKIP poised for victory in Europe vote"

New Statesman: "Ukip has won the European elections"

Reuters again: "Results for Europe vote in Britain confirm win for UKIP party"

Japan Times: "UKIP victorious in EU vote"

Daily Mirror: "UKIP is still on course to win European elections despite disastrous week for Nigel Farage"

....

So other than highlighting the either moronic or less than honest hype that the UKIP engenders in the British press, what's your point? That you can now 'win' an election without actually gaining any kind of majority? Please let me know what this new definition of 'winning' is.

ewan whose army

Interesting reading

The de facto leader of Ukip since 1999 has been a racist political failure," Sked counters. He means, of course, Nigel Farage. But even if Farage's recent statements about not wanting to live next door to Romanians suggest he is xenophobic, is there any proof he was racist when he and Sked worked together in the mid-1990s? Sked laughs at the question and recalls an incident from 1997 when the two men were arguing over the kind of candidates that Ukip should have standing at the looming general election. "He wanted ex-National Front candidates to run and I said, 'I'm not sure about that,' and he said, 'There's no need to worry about the ****** vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us.'"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

So other than highlighting the either moronic or less than honest hype that the UKIP engenders in the British press, what's your point? That you can now 'win' an election without actually gaining any kind of majority? Please let me know what this new definition of 'winning' is.

Wall Street Journal: U.K. Euroskeptic Party Closes In on European Election Victory.

People's Daily (Xinhua): Eurosceptic UKIP wins European elections in Britain, pro-European party suffers huge setback'

Washington Post: Anti-establishment parties claim big wins in European parliamentary vote

Already posted headline from AP which is an international agency based in New York.

Many many more of them from around the world.

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

Many many more of them from around the world.

How about you respond to my question without hiding behind some more hype? Can you now 'win' an election without actually gaining any kind of majority? Please let me know what this new definition of 'winning' is.

sin_city

The Corinthian wrote: »

How about you respond to my question without hiding behind some more hype? Can you now 'win' an election without actually gaining any kind of majority? Please let me know what this new definition of 'winning' is.

They did win though didn't they?

Morgans

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, you've used the word I would use there - 'vision'. I might not like or agree with the vision of Britain that Farage conjures up, but it's a powerful one, and he articulates it well. It's by no means original, of course, indeed something of a classic - even the use of 'Britain', with its unspoken 'Great' and its sentimental old-fashioned overtones, is a regular part of such nostalgic hankerings.

Has he shown any actual ability to lead the British people there? Not a bit, I think - he hasn't even shown the ability to lead his own party there without conjuring up the dark side of the vision that he's supposed to wish to avoid. The British people certainly aren't any nearer it, but then, realistically, they never can be - at most, what can Farage deliver? Leaving the EU will not recreate postwar Britain except perhaps economically - and postwar Britain was desperate to join the EU for that reason.

I don't know. If someone could deliver a culturally "British" Britain somehow cured of sink estates, anomie, excess security, dependence on murky financial wealth, a decayed North, bloated South, and an increasingly gilded oligarchy, deliver an England of cricket on the village green, vicarage teas, summers by the seaside, wealth from trade and industry, but devoid of racism and xenophobia, I'd take my hat off to them (I'd put one on specifically to do so). Do I think Farage will deliver it? No. Is he even going the right away about it? Not that I can see. I think he's trading on fear and distrust, and he's selling a mirage of a past that never really was and never can be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its not about delivering what he promises. Although he is tapping into that old english attitude, I'm not sure they have put any policies like that. He is a bit too clever for that. Exiting from Europe and anti-immigration seem to be the main platforms.

He is definitely tapping into that idealist view of what Britain used to be. Something that tories had done for a long long time. Cricket on the green, tea with the vicarage, everyone is godfearing, white, fear of europe etc. As you said, its not a new idea. What is new is that there is a politican who has got it front and centre onto the national agenda, along with the anti-imigration and forcing uk parties to address what they are going to dp regarding the EU (referendum or not).

There is no chance that he will be able to turn the clock back to the imaginary place he would like, but judging his leadership skills on whether he turns the clock back is set him up to fail as a leader. Politics is a battle for ideas, and that the main parties have to tackle Farage's impossible ideals means he is winning. For this, Farage has led his party impeccably. That the main political parties are going to have to address the feeling in the UK, means that he is winning the battle.

As you appreciate, it has nothing to do with the quality of his vision.

A Dub in Glasgo

sin_city wrote: »

They did win though didn't they?

If winning means that UKIP has the most MEPs then yes, if winning means the majority of people in the UK voted for them then no. If winning means they have a majority in the European Parliament then no

jank

The Corinthian wrote: »

How about you respond to my question without hiding behind some more hype? Can you now 'win' an election without actually gaining any kind of majority? Please let me know what this new definition of 'winning' is.

Winning is normally defined by coming first in an election, which UKIP did in the British Euro elections. I think that qualifies.

jank

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If winning means that UKIP has the most MEPs then yes, if winning means the majority of people in the UK voted for them then no. If winning means they have a majority in the European Parliament then no

Do you mean UKIP or their allies?

Anyway, I dont think anyone stated that the majority of the UK would have or did vote for UKIP. That rarely happened anyway even during Thatcher's or Blair's years. In fact has it ever happened, a party getting over 50% of the vote? I cant see that it has over the past 70 years. So using that now as some parameter seems out of character with the concept of 'winning'.

Banjoxed

What has been conveniently lost in the hype is that in the English council elections, like ours held at the same time, the Kippers came fourth in seats and third in votes.

The regional list ballot paper allowed plenty the indulgence of consequence free voting. When it came to the nuts and bolts of running schools, police, fire services and the broader run of services devolved to councils, and the setting of council tax, nowhere in England did the Kippers come close to being trusted to do these things, and certainly not in the great cities, where cultural diversity is normal, and where your friend and neighbour is not a bogeyman "other".

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't see opposing treaties in itself as eurosceptical

That is an odd statement given that Sinn Fein have campaigned against all European Treaties. I don't think the option of 'none of the above' really applies here.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mm, no. Xenophobia is an unreasoned fear/loathing of foreigners - most particularly, at foreigners who are really felt to be foreign and unfamiliar, as opposed to what you might call "familiar foreigners". A historically based dislike for a specific and entirely familiar nation is entirely different.

Point taken but one has to admit that a certain element of their support has a certain disdain and hatred for all things British.

The Corinthian

sin_city wrote: »

They did win though didn't they?

What, if you repeat it enough times it's true? Waste someone else's time with such childish tactics please.

jank wrote: »

Winning is normally defined by coming first in an election, which UKIP did in the British Euro elections. I think that qualifies.

Actually winning is not normally defined that way - I already addressed that. If it were, 'coming first' would mean getting to form the government and unless you had not noticed, there's plenty of governments out there that are not controlled by the party that 'came first'.

Winning is about gaining control of a parliment. For that you need a majority. Otherwise you're just the opposition and last time I checked the opposition is never considered the 'winner' of an election.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

That is an odd statement given that Sinn Fein have campaigned against all European Treaties. I don't think the option of 'none of the above' really applies here.

Well, I've given my reasoning. I accept that it's a bit counter-intuitive, but I do really see their position as a good deal more nuanced and pragmatically flexible than that of any other party under the "eurosceptical" banner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Morgans wrote: »

Its not about delivering what he promises. Although he is tapping into that old english attitude, I'm not sure they have put any policies like that. He is a bit too clever for that. Exiting from Europe and anti-immigration seem to be the main platforms.

He is definitely tapping into that idealist view of what Britain used to be. Something that tories had done for a long long time. Cricket on the green, tea with the vicarage, everyone is godfearing, white, fear of europe etc. As you said, its not a new idea. What is new is that there is a politican who has got it front and centre onto the national agenda, along with the anti-imigration and forcing uk parties to address what they are going to dp regarding the EU (referendum or not).

There is no chance that he will be able to turn the clock back to the imaginary place he would like, but judging his leadership skills on whether he turns the clock back is set him up to fail as a leader. Politics is a battle for ideas, and that the main parties have to tackle Farage's impossible ideals means he is winning. For this, Farage has led his party impeccably. That the main political parties are going to have to address the feeling in the UK, means that he is winning the battle.

As you appreciate, it has nothing to do with the quality of his vision.

Again, though, the points you make have nothing to do with leadership. I would say the claim that he has " led his party impeccably" is faintly hilarious, given that he regularly disclaims all responsibility for them in public. And his ability to deliver on his vision certainly is a test of leadership - the ability to articulate a convincing if unoriginal vision isn't.

That doesn't mean I don't think he has achieved a huge amount in shifting the debate - he undeniably has. And if you like the term "opinion leader" then he's certainly that - but so are people like Gwyneth Paltrow, and I don't think anyone claims leadership skills for them. Did Princess Diana have "great leadership skills"?

If you take Bertie Ahern as a contrast - the man was an excellent leader. He led his party with iron discipline, and led the country into his 'vision' of it as a light-touch financial offshore haven. Thatcher renewed her party and created a vision of society that has appealed far beyond the UK. Blair rather more briefly did the same. Farage has done neither of these things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morgans

I think your definition of leadership is too narrow and faintly hilarious. Only those who are in the most popular party can be leaders apparently. The largest majority makes for the greatest leaders is it??

Picking three leaders of the largest political parties, two of which coincided with the most favourable economic climate of the last 30 years. That is less a test of leadership. Interesting about Bertie Ahern claiming that he was a socialist, yet you say his vision was one of turning Ireland into an offshore tax haven. That is populist not leadership. If leadership is just about winning elections, regardless of the costs, that is a narrow definition of leadership. I posted my definition of leadership before I started this conversation. Can you do the same? There was a very long fall out for the parties associated with the good "leaders" you have pinpointed. Reason being that they essentially not leading, by backing up their principles with policies.

The PDs did more of the leading than Bertie Ahern ever did, by imposing their vision of the future on the political classes. The light touch regulation had more to do with PDs than FF. It is what Farage has done now. Politics is a battle for ideas. Either Labour/Tory steal UKIPs clothes of the UKIP takes their votes. Just like how FF stole the PDs.

Scofflaw

Morgans wrote: »

I think your definition of leadership is too narrow and faintly hilarious. Only those who are in the most popular party can be leaders apparently. The largest majority makes for the greatest leaders is it??

Picking three leaders of the largest political parties, two of which coincided with the most favourable economic climate of the last 30 years. That is less a test of leadership. Interesting about Bertie Ahern claiming that he was a socialist, yet you say his vision was one of turning Ireland into an offshore tax haven. That is populist not leadership. If leadership is just about winning elections, regardless of the costs, that is a narrow definition of leadership. I posted my definition of leadership before I started this conversation. Can you do the same? There was a very long fall out for the parties associated with the good "leaders" you have pinpointed. Reason being that they essentially not leading, by backing up their principles with policies.

The PDs did more of the leading than Bertie Ahern ever did, by imposing their vision of the future on the political classes. The light touch regulation had more to do with PDs than FF. It is what Farage has done now. Politics is a battle for ideas. Either Labour/Tory steal UKIPs clothes of the UKIP takes their votes. Just like how FF stole the PDs.

Well, what you're defining there is "opinion leadership", and on that I agree that Farage is the current leader in English politics.

My own definition of leadership is the ability to lead people - that is, to line them up and get them to work together to some common goal. Thatcher and Blair became the leaders of the largest parties because they could do that, and the first place they did it was in their own parties. Thatcher took a ragbag Tory party and imposed discipline and an ideological vision on it, and through them, on Britain. Blair took an unelectable Labour party in hock to the unions, and turned it into something else, and sold that something else to the UK.

Farage hasn't done those things. He has tapped into a particular zeitgeist, and run with it because he's a good speaker and a charismatic man. His party is an undisciplined rabble who get elected on the strength of Farage, and his vision for Britain is incoherent and undeliverable.

Anyways, it seems we're arguing over semantics, which is one of the world's least worthwhile activities.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morgans

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, what you're defining there is "opinion leadership", and on that I agree that Farage is the current leader in English politics.

My own definition of leadership is the ability to lead people - that is, to line them up and get them to work together to some common goal. Thatcher and Blair became the leaders of the largest parties because they could do that, and the first place they did it was in their own parties. Thatcher took a ragbag Tory party and imposed discipline and an ideological vision on it, and through them, on Britain. Blair took an unelectable Labour party in hock to the unions, and turned it into something else, and sold that something else to the UK.

Farage hasn't done those things. He has tapped into a particular zeitgeist, and run with it because he's a good speaker and a charismatic man. His party is an undisciplined rabble who get elected on the strength of Farage, and his vision for Britain is incoherent and undeliverable.

Anyways, it seems we're arguing over semantics, which is one of the world's least worthwhile activities.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Possibly. With FPP in the UK, he will never hold the balance of power or get a ministry in which his policies will be tested. However, he has a very large effect on the EU for someone with so few national politicians. His vision (like the PDs in Ireland) will be incorporated into the mainstream. That to me takes leadership.

Ash.J.Williams

The problem with our government is they deal with the EU behind closed doors and don't keep the people informed. This has resulted in the public having the opinion, that the government bend over and do exactly what the EU tell them and they appear gutless to us. If things were more transparent and we could see our government stand up for us and fight for every cut they can we might be proud of them....instead all we get is "look we're charging for water whether you like it or not...we're taking your medical card i don;t care how old and sick you are..etc"

Scofflaw

Morgans wrote: »

Possibly. With FPP in the UK, he will never hold the balance of power or get a ministry in which his policies will be tested. However, he has a very large effect on the EU for someone with so few national politicians. His vision (like the PDs in Ireland) will be incorporated into the mainstream. That to me takes leadership.

I don't think he makes much difference to the EU at all, except through the domestic pressure he exerts on the Tories. He's a single element in a wider phenomenon, and not the largest such element by any means - most of the concern is reserved for the Front Nationale and Jobbik, the former because large, the latter because extreme.

I can't think of a single policy area in Europe where Farage has had any impact - even by voting, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morgans

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think he makes much difference to the EU at all, except through the domestic pressure he exerts on the Tories. He's a single element in a wider phenomenon, and not the largest such element by any means - most of the concern is reserved for the Front Nationale and Jobbik, the former because large, the latter because extreme.

I can't think of a single policy area in Europe where Farage has had any impact - even by voting, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think by increasing the pressure on the Tories to force a referendum on whether the UK stays in or out of the EU means that he is the person with most impact. If he can maintain the pressure and force a referendum that is. The EU without the UK will be a different animal.

jank

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually winning is not normally defined that way - I already addressed that. If it were, 'coming first' would mean getting to form the government and unless you had not noticed, there's plenty of governments out there that are not controlled by the party that 'came first'.

Are we talking about Westminster here or the European parliament? As I have no idea which one you are talking about...(and I did ask for clarification).

Can you show me some obvious examples of governments being formed that excluded the biggest party? Maybe Greece or Italy but there are not that many and its rather unusual.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Winning is about gaining control of a parliment. For that you need a majority. Otherwise you're just the opposition and last time I checked the opposition is never considered the 'winner' of an election.

You are disagreeing with yourself in a way in what you said above. You do not need a majority to gain control of a parliament. Take for example the PD's in 2002 or the Greens in 2007. They did not 'win' that election yet found themselves in power and had a fair amount of influence as the king makers.

The days of mainstream parties getting an overall majority of over 50% of the vote are well and truly over. As I said previously, this has not happened in the UK for the best part of 70 years, so given that reasoning of 'winning' nobody has won an election that way, not even Blair in 97.

It seems rather a pedantic argument in fairness when UKIP have become the first party in over a century to 'win' a national election that didn't include the other big two. What you are essentially saying, pedantically is that UKIP are still 'losers'. So if they are losers, who are the winners of the European elections in the UK?

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thatcher renewed her party and created a vision of society that has appealed far beyond the UK. Blair rather more briefly did the same. Farage has done neither of these things.

If you are giving Thatcher and Blair credit for renewing their own parties, then one must some credit to Farage in leading a party from basically nothing to a national party in the UK that now have more MEP's than any other party.

jank

Morgans wrote: »

The PDs did more of the leading than Bertie Ahern ever did, by imposing their vision of the future on the political classes. The light touch regulation had more to do with PDs than FF. It is what Farage has done now. Politics is a battle for ideas. Either Labour/Tory steal UKIPs clothes of the UKIP takes their votes. Just like how FF stole the PDs.

Agree with your point about the PD's. Des o'Malley is the man who has more or less defined modern Ireland that we know today. The PD's are no longer in existence yet even left leaning parties thread carefully when talking about raising taxes and the like. The PD's were never the largest party in Ireland but they sure had the biggest influence and were their ideas were basically subsumed by the rest. That to me is leadership, not Bertie who would sell his own mother for a vote.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

If you are giving Thatcher and Blair credit for renewing their own parties, then one must some credit to Farage in leading a party from basically nothing to a national party in the UK that now have more MEP's than any other party.

I certainly don't claim he has no leadership skills at all - I only took issue with "great" leadership skills. After all, on the same basis, wouldn't one have to credit Eamon Gilmore with "great" leadership skills because of the 2011 election result for Labour?

cordially,
Scofflaw