Please don't try to pretend that Vote Leave were responsible for winning the referendum. They wouldn't have had a referendum to fight in the first place if UKIP hadn't piled on the pressure for it. Vote Leave piously (outrageously, given the terms of the official designation) refused to work with Nigel Farage and UKIP. They constantly pooh-poohed the idea of discussing the immigration issue - until they finally twigged near the end that Mr. Farage had been right all along and that was the Remainers' weakest point. Suddenly Farage's much-vaunted 'Australian points-style immigration system' was flavour of the month! Not that they gave him the credit - it was all their own idea apparently. Of course it was...

Not in my experience - have you ever sat in on a female-dominated PTA meeting?!

I think Gove should admit he made a mistake, pull out and back Andrea Leadsom. Johnson and Fox should back her as well. It is the only way for the Leavers to look united and stand a chance now. If May gets it she will need to squeeze one heck of a deal out of the EU or it will all be painted as a stitch-up and UKIP will be the main beneficiaries in 2020. It's a massive risk for the Tories to give that job to a Remainer. May will never get away with the "best we could do" line, but a dedicated and suitably chastened Leaver just might.

Now Operation Stop Boris has been successful, please can we have Operation Stop May? Ta!

Actually the main reason that the Electoral Commission gave for selecting VoteLeave instead of Grassroots Out was that they were better able to "ensure the views of other campaigners are represented in the delivery of its campaign". A travesty, really, given that VoteLeave has repeatedly gone out of their way to create division, refuse overtures from other groups and exclude UKIP and Nigel Farage from their campaign. I am pleased that ITV has thwarted their pathetic little playground games. :)

UKIP put up far fewer candidates than the other parties in the council elections - they don't have the resources that the larger parties have. They only fought about a quarter of the possible seats, I believe. They've put the cat amongst the pigeons (or the fox amongst the hens, if you prefer!) and they've made it acceptable to vote UKIP in spite of an appalling campaign against them by the media and the other parties. They cannot be dismissed as fruitcakes and loons any more. They have enough support to make a crucial difference in marginal constituencies. And they seem to have replaced the LibDems as the third party. That'll do for now. :D

If enough people abstain, there may well be serious constitutional questions asked and those questions will be completely ignored by the people with the power to do something about it. Because they will be in Parliament regardless, and it won't bother them if they got 10 million votes or just 10 - as long as they got in, they won't care. They will blame it on the lazy, apathetic British public, shrug, and get stuck straight into the trough.

Surely the best way to undermine the foundations at Westminster is to vote for anyone BUT Labour and Conservative, and shake them out of their complacency. Someone who doesn’t vote can safely be ignored. If the 35% of the population who didn’t vote last time turned up in 2015 and voted for the ‘wrong’ party, they would cause a revolution.

I don't hate the Conservatives. I have never voted anything but Conservative in a general election before. But they are not conservative any more. They are Labour-lite, and UKIP is occupying the space where the Conservatives used to be. I am merely re-aligning myself with a party that genuinely shares my values rather than one who just pays lip service to them. Surely this is positive?

Personally I feel that your 'Vote UKIP, Get Labour' message is fundamentally negative - a case of 'Vote For Us Because The Alternative Is Worse'. How negative how can you get?!

My original post was taking issue with the Chancellor’s claim to be fair, and the importance of there being "a relationship between what you put in and what you get out". I don’t mind that we pay more tax than the “poor”. I do mind that we pay thousands and thousands more in tax than other households with the same income (and, indeed, much larger incomes) and then we are vilified for being “rich” and are deliberately excluded from any perks that the Chancellor might decide to introduce. We are not “rich”. We have not been on holiday abroad for 12 years. We have a 10 year old car. We don’t drink or smoke or have cable TV. We have three children, a big mortgage (we live just outside London), and bills everywhere we look. After the government have taken their share, we have the equivalent post-tax income of two people each earning just less than the national average salary. Except that those two people will qualify for child benefit and childcare allowances and married couple’s tax allowance and anything else the Chancellor wants to throw at them on top, and nobody would dream of calling them “rich” and telling them they’re greedy. Whereas we are regarded as a handy source of extra income, an easy target for class spite and envy, and we are entitled to b*gger all.

So, yes, it does sting a bit when a supposedly Conservative chancellor puts us in this situation and then tries to tell us that it’s fair. Of course it isn’t fair. Like I said, we’re an easy target so nobody will listen or do anything about it. But don’t expect us to vote for you when you treat us with such arrogant, casual contempt.

We've already got higher taxes for higher rate taxpayers with the Conservatives. So what difference would it make if we get a Labour government? UKIP are in favour of a flat-rate tax, which is something I wholeheartedly support.

Vote Tory. Get Labour. Because they're exactly the same anyway.
Vote UKIP. Get revenge! :D :D :D

My feelings precisely - I could not have put it better. Thank you.