On objectional politicians, is Lord Ahmed still a member of the Labour Party? Surely they must have expelled him by now (or not).

But when you add the (maybe) Nazi salute with the expulsion of a member for saying that gay marriage should be legal, as well as their plan to build prisons and abolish human rights, add on top of that the policy that they want the ability to declare war, and that they're a mainly xenophobic (anti immigration) party, and its a recipe for trouble. What trouble exactly, I'm not going to speculate. Just trouble.

Ok, I'm now totally confused. Is there a party out there that doesn't want the ability to declare war if they come to power? Come to think of it, is there a party that hasn't built prisons when in power?

How is expelling a party member for disagreeing with a party policy a controversial thing? I don't see how building prisons means anything sinister either. They don't intend to 'abolish human rights'. Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and/or withdrawing from the ECHR doesn't mean there will be no replacement. Incidentally, human rights could be argued to be protected by the remainder of British law. Human rights don't have to be protected in the form they're laid out in the ECHR.

I'm also pretty sure that 'anti-immigration' and xenophobia are not synonyms, despite the fact that the party probably does have a large number of xenophobic supporters.

It's VegasBaby

I disagree with some of UKIP's policies but welcome their involvement for a number of reasons.

1/. They represent some popular policies which the three main parties seem to have reached some kind of consensus on for example EU membership, immigration, gay marriage etc. I disagree with those views, but it damages democracy if these views aren't represented.

2/. If, as I suspect, they national even support results in no or very few seats, it brings the PR debate back into focus.

3/. For too long the right of centre Tories have been disproportionately successful because the left of centre parties have split the vote. Having a second right wing party evens the electoral landscape.

4/. It heralds the end of parties like the BNP.

With regard to point two, if their support translates into a general election I agree, although I suspect it won't. If it does it will be quite surprising (to me, at least) that stronger minor parties caused the change in the voting system rather than a change in the voting system creating stronger minor parties.

Sadly such a change would herald a mini revival of the BNP.

For point three, I disagree quite strongly. The Lib Dems do not equal Labour, otherwise they simply wouldn't exist. All three parties offer distinct views on how the country should be run. The electoral landscape is uneven primarily because it takes far fewer voters to generate a Labour MP than a Tory MP.

"The electoral landscape is uneven primarily because it takes far fewer voters to generate a Labour MP than a Tory MP."

Really? So it takes around 33-34,000 votes to elect each Tory or labour MP, but UKIP'S 950,000 votes at the last election got them 0 seats. Do you still think the election landscape is uneven PRIMARILY because of the difference the votes needed to achieve a lab or Tory seat?

Yes. Clearly it is extremely hard on minority parties, but this is arguably no bad thing. The ideal of creating strong governments is a good one and is generally achieved by the system at the expense of minority parties. The system's chief failing is treating the major parties unfairly.

@Oct
"Ok, I'm now totally confused. Is there a party out there that doesn't want the ability to declare war if they come to power? Come to think of it, is there a party that hasn't built prisons when in power? "

Was that re: me?

@red

No... it was to Synapse and his insisting that UKIP want to be able to build prisons and the ability to declare war if they won the election.

Youe comments have been pretty sensible, although I think your point about more powers to parliament applied more to nations with a tradition of cloalitions and a large variety of parties. Over here, where the ruling party usually has a majority in parliament, giving more power to parliament essentially just tries to stop the PM and his selected few from doing a Blair and ruling like a President.

Whilst I appreciate that any system has to be workable it also has to be representative. I foresee a situation where Tory and lab will get around 28-30% each UKIP 20-25% and libdems 12-17%. Libdems will form coalition with either red or blue team and party with possibly twice their support will have no MPs. This doesn't hurt a minor party it favours them.

I do not foresee that situation. I expect the next exlection to be a return to the two main party status quo.

@Oct: very good point, I understand. Although I do feel there is something to say for "pulling a Blair" on an issue like Iraq. I mean, a war is simply something you're staking your political capital on. You can't go to parliament, ask if you can invade a nation, get a no and move on with your life. So I believe the question of whether a government declares war relates so deeply to the existence of that government that in some situations, they should just do as they please and let parliament send them home if they feel like it..

What happens when Scotland, as it surely will next year, becomes independent, its own nation once again? Diplomacy? England will be screwed. Scots are a lot more canny than their arrogant neighbours.

Alex Salmond for Pope Alex I

. . . disestablishing the papacy along the way, as is our wont.

Why are you so sure Scotland with vote for independence Timur? I thought the odds were against it.

The odds apparently are. The most recent poll I heard of stated 60% of Scots said they weren't for independence.

I also don't see UKIP doing well in the next general election. With the first past the post system that we have there will be too much strategic voting and I reckon Cameron will still manage to hold office over Milliband. Nobody else realistically stands a chance for a good few years in my opinion.p

Maniac and Hereward: Just wait till nearer the time and you'll see people come out with their true feelings. We were robbed of independence in the 70s. Despite the fact that a whole bunch of English have moved up to the blessed land, they will not outnumber us. We shall overcome. (C'mon Joan!)

I'm interested in that opinion Timur, are you really convinced? I was of the opinion that there was no way they would vote for independence.

Note - not trying to start a war, just geniunely interested in opinion....

If the Scots should choose independence, where will the border be?

And will there be a further referendum for those parts of Northern England which have far more common ground with the Scots than with the Southerners?

pj: I'm sure that all true Scots will vote for independence. However, how many of them are left is a matter of conjecture. I, for sure, am one.

Do you think its really in the best interest of the country?

@ YadHo

Indeed, each region of England will be given a referendum, and we'll each vote to join Scotland. Then the new nation of Greater Scotland will have a referendum on a name change, and rename itself Britain, and all will rejoice in our new and independent land!

yad: Very good point. Where is the borderline of 'Northern Britain'?

oct: :~)

@ Timur
The border shifted up and down from the 9th to the Fourteenth centuries, depending on which side had won the most recent battle. Much of Cumbria was at one time Scottish, whilst Lothian had periods under English rule.

Anyway, as the 30x Great Grandson of Malcolm Canmore, I'd like a vote... :)