Someone was ahead of the 2013 LE results by a year... Mr Skelton from Policy Exchange...
"A new poll for Policy Exchange shows that a gulf has opened up between politicians and the people. More than 80% of voters think that politicians don’t understand the real world at all. At a time of the biggest squeeze in living standards for decades, ordinary voters don’t believe that politicians understand their concerns. What is clear is that both parties are affected by the strong anti politics mood.
I think this is UKIP's opening. There's no significant policy difference between Con, Lab, LD on cost of living issues.
I agree that there is an opportunity on cost of living and also on the cost of 'luxuries'. I always thought the Tories could have won the election if they had had a more working class candidate and promised to:
Cut fuel duty by 10% and then freeze it Cut alcohol duty by 10% and then freeze it Cut cigarette duty by 10% and then freeze it Abolish the TV licence fee (get the BBC to show adverts instead)
Might be the sort of thing that UKIP could pick up. I would promise these things and then try to put posters up in every pub in the country.
Of course, this would all be strongly opposed by the Guardian tendency but would be very popular in working class areas.
Just to add that whenever there is a budget, people always talk about how progressive the changes to taxation are. No-one ever mentions how regressive the 4 taxes above are.
couldn't we just cut the TV licence to zero ? The BBC can just borrow money to keep going and then take on more staff.
The TV license is another tax that doesn't raise any revenue for HMG. Excellent candidate.
Someone was ahead of the 2013 LE results by a year... Mr Skelton from Policy Exchange...
"A new poll for Policy Exchange shows that a gulf has opened up between politicians and the people. More than 80% of voters think that politicians don’t understand the real world at all. At a time of the biggest squeeze in living standards for decades, ordinary voters don’t believe that politicians understand their concerns. What is clear is that both parties are affected by the strong anti politics mood.
I think this is UKIP's opening. There's no significant policy difference between Con, Lab, LD on cost of living issues.
I agree that there is an opportunity on cost of living and also on the cost of 'luxuries'. I always thought the Tories could have won the election if they had had a more working class candidate and promised to:
Cut fuel duty by 10% and then freeze it Cut alcohol duty by 10% and then freeze it Cut cigarette duty by 10% and then freeze it Abolish the TV licence fee (get the BBC to show adverts instead)
Might be the sort of thing that UKIP could pick up. I would promise these things and then try to put posters up in every pub in the country.
Of course, this would all be strongly opposed by the Guardian tendency but would be very popular in working class areas.
I don't see why fuel duty couldn't be lumped in with VAT so that businesses could claim it back.
EDIT "Fuel duty is higher in the UK than in any other major economy. Taxes on diesel for commercial use are particularly high, over 50 per cent higher than in France and Germany and over 500 per cent higher than in the USA. Industries heavily dependent on road transport in the UK are therefore at a major competitive disadvantage."
Just think - only a year ago, we were all laughing at the lamentable performance of UKIP in the London mayoral and assembly elections. Admittedly they shot themselves in the foot with the bizarre 'Fresh Choice for London' branding, but that was part of the reason for the derision.
Punters would be wise to reflect on the dangers of over-reaction - in either direction.
They would also be wise not to bet against tim on this matter!
I write as a Tory who lost his county council seat yesterday to the Lib Dems, (before Ian Stewart points out the fact).
I think you, and the meedja are all rather missing the point. Yesterday was the 3rd anniversary of the Tory led government being formed so it was always going to be difficult.
What happened yesterday was a vote against. It wasn't a vote against anything in particular, just a vote against allness. How that coalesced varied council by council, division by division and even village by village.
So here in Tim's South Lakeland the Lib Dems consolidated what they previously held and took me out, leaving three Tories standing. UKIP had no noticable effect. In Woodcock's South Lakeland UKIP did have an effect taking enough Tory votes in High Furness to elect a Lib Dem. In Ulverston the safe Labour seat lost four years ago went back to Labour. The safe Tory seat remains Tory.
In Eden we took back a seat from the LDs which we should never have lost four years ago and lost one to the LD who appears in Seven Up. Three very marginal Tories (majorities much less than 50) all held on and consolidated, one taking his majority over 250.
Barrow was a messy result four years ago because of a school academy issue with several Independents elected and some unsuspecting Tories. This has reverted to type with just one Tory standing and all the rest Labour.
Elsewhere, two very interesting and apparently unreported results where the sitting Labour councillor was deselected. Both stood as Independents against the official Labour candidate and both walked home. Having worked with them for 4 years I can vouch for the fact they are both excellent councillors.
All this adds up to a NOC council with Labour in the lead and the Tories second, much a reverse of the 2009 result.
To government nationally this is not too bad at all and the Cumbria coalition which emerges will probably not give it too many headaches.
It is my take on the results elsewhere that the seats lost were always going to be lost, many won by accident four years ago. If they are held by UKIP, rather than Labour or even the Lib Dems then for national governement that is good. By and large these upper tier councils and unitaries remain essentially friendly to the aspirations of national goverment.
The results will also leave the English Councils' organisation, whose name escapes me for the second, in Tory control. Not an insignificant point.
" In Woodcock's South Lakeland UKIP did have an effect taking enough Tory votes in High Furness to elect a Lib Dem "
They're not 'Tory votes' they're their own votes.
People have a right to vote for whichever candidate and whichever party they like.
If the Conservatives don't have the right people or policies to attract votes that's their own fault not that of the voters or that of the parties the voters chose to vote for instead.
As a Londoner, I can say while there are people in London who think there's been too much immigration, it's definitely lower than in the Shires. A lot of Londoners are younger people in their 20s who care more about having a good variety of ethnic food than having a cohesive sense of community. The type that care more about the latter tend to move out of the city by their early 30s.
"How about the legendary Scottish "Yes" vote surge?"
I don't think anyone's described it as a "surge", but even you would have to concede that there's been a clear swing to Yes since the end of last year.
" In Woodcock's South Lakeland UKIP did have an effect taking enough Tory votes in High Furness to elect a Lib Dem "
They're not 'Tory votes' they're their own votes.
People have a right to vote for whichever candidate and whichever party they like.
If the Conservatives don't have the right people or policies to attract votes that's their own fault not that of the voters or that of the parties the voters chose to vote for instead.
" In Woodcock's South Lakeland UKIP did have an effect taking enough Tory votes in High Furness to elect a Lib Dem "
They're not 'Tory votes' they're their own votes.
People have a right to vote for whichever candidate and whichever party they like.
If the Conservatives don't have the right people or policies to attract votes that's their own fault not that of the voters or that of the parties the voters chose to vote for instead.
Just think - only a year ago, we were all laughing at the lamentable performance of UKIP in the London mayoral and assembly elections. Admittedly they shot themselves in the foot with the bizarre 'Fresh Choice for London' branding, but that was part of the reason for the derision.
Punters would be wise to reflect on the dangers of over-reaction - in either direction.
They would also be wise not to bet against tim on this matter!
Imagine you had several packs of self assembly furniture and you had to assemble them.
You didn't know what they were and you had no instructions.
You'd struggle to begin with and probably have several false starts but if you kept at it you would end up assembling something.
It might not be the right thing and it might not be structurally sound. It would be sneered at by more sophisticated people but it would be something which some other people would like and find useful.
That's what UKIP is.
They've found themselves a demographic - the provincial private sector wwc.
That's not enough for them to win major elections but it is enough for them to get some MPs elected and overall controll on some district councils.
And more importantly its enough for them to break up the political system both structurally and policy wise.
"Does anyone know what the actual vote-shares were, before they were adjusted in order to give the national projection?"
Even before that adjustment, the BBC were only giving the raw vote shares for their "key wards", rather than all wards contested, which was a bit peculiar.
As a Londoner, I can say while there are people in London who think there's been too much immigration, it's definitely lower than in the Shires. A lot of Londoners are younger people in their 20s who care more about having a good variety of ethnic food than having a cohesive sense of community. The type that care more about the latter tend to move out of the city by their early 30s.
Londoners who move out from London for work and living standards reasons could be a good UKIP demographic.
Sorry I messed up the quote, I am unfamiliar with this latest user interface.
I sort of take the point but it is one based on sophistry. If there hadn't been a UKIP candidate then the division in question would have almost certainly have returned the Tory candidate.
There must be large areas of London these days with hardly any lower middle-class voters because it's simply unaffordable. You either have to fairly wealthy to afford property or live in council-provided accommodation. Explains why UKIP don't do very well in London.
Sorry I messed up the quote, I am unfamiliar with this latest user interface.
I sort of take the point but it is one based on sophistry. If there hadn't been a UKIP candidate then the division in question would have almost certainly have returned the Tory candidate.
I dare say it would but that mindset ultimately leads to the party leaderships taking their voters for granted, ignoring perhaps even despising those that aren't like them and instead trying to attract people they regard as more 'exciting'.
So we've had years of the Cameroons aiming Conservative strategy at greens, gays, upper middle class women or whatever happens to the fashionable guardianista group of the time.
All the time ignoring, even deliberately fueling, the resentment which was building up against them from people who have been losing out during the last decade.
With the result we saw this week which has cost you your place on the council through no fault of your own.
The Conservatives wouldn't have lost if there hadn't been a UKIP candidate.
But if former Conservative voters hadn't felt let down they would still have voted Conservative.
The person you need to blame is Osborne - the self described 'genius' who thought that Conservative voters had nowhere else to go and so could be ignored by the leadership while they went off chasing more fashionable demographics.
Sorry I messed up the quote, I am unfamiliar with this latest user interface.
I sort of take the point but it is one based on sophistry. If there hadn't been a UKIP candidate then the division in question would have almost certainly have returned the Tory candidate.
I dare say it would but that mindset ultimately leads to the party leaderships taking their voters for granted, ignoring perhaps even despising those that aren't like them and instead trying to attract people they regard as more 'exciting'.
So we've had years of the Cameroons aiming Conservative strategy at greens, gays, upper middle class women or whatever happens to the fashionable guardianista group of the time.
All the time ignoring, even deliberately fueling, the resentment which was building up against them from people who have been losing out during the last decade.
With the result we saw this week which has cost you your place on the council through no fault of your own.
That just shows Cameron has misunderstood the saying you win elections in the Centre. You only win in the centre if you keep everyone else on board; centre right or centre left can win under FPTP but left, right or centre in isolation can't.
Just think - only a year ago, we were all laughing at the lamentable performance of UKIP in the London mayoral and assembly elections. Admittedly they shot themselves in the foot with the bizarre 'Fresh Choice for London' branding, but that was part of the reason for the derision.
Punters would be wise to reflect on the dangers of over-reaction - in either direction.
They would also be wise not to bet against tim on this matter!
Imagine you had several packs of self assembly furniture and you had to assemble them.
You didn't know what they were and you had no instructions.
You'd struggle to begin with and probably have several false starts but if you kept at it you would end up assembling something.
It might not be the right thing and it might not be structurally sound. It would be sneered at by more sophisticated people but it would be something which some other people would like and find useful.
That's what UKIP is.
They've found themselves a demographic - the provincial private sector wwc.
That's not enough for them to win major elections but it is enough for them to get some MPs elected and overall controll on some district councils.
And more importantly its enough for them to break up the political system both structurally and policy wise.
With four parties splitting the vote, UKIP won't need to build very high to win seats. The LD winner in Eastleigh had 32% of the vote.
Putting all the eggs in one basket is not a substitute for an investment strategy. 15% return looks attractive, but how many of them are likely to be real? Even spreading the money into 4 different types of shares would lower the risk of losing the lot.
There must be large areas of London these days with hardly any lower middle-class voters because it's simply unaffordable.
:eek:
Define unaffordable, lower middle-class and voters. Most of South-East London would be classed as 'middle-class', albeit with > £250k homes (>£1.3 million in Blackheath/Dulwich Village). Even rental-properties are a reasonable ~£1K P.C.M. (half what Dr Sven Palmer would rape the English tax-payer for [if he was still an MP]).
There are plenty of folk who do well within the commuter-belt: What's lacking is a will to vote. Under Thatch' most of the Kentish-lands were blue....
LibDems collapsed in Chesterfield taking just 1 division out of 8. They now have more County Cllr in High Peak.
They held up quite decently (considering the current political climate for them. They are still trailing Lab 43 to 30%) in City of Durham area. Also in Ashfield.
In Burnley they did ok in terms of Cllrs (2 seats out of 6 and losing the third by 7 votes) but they 18% behind in terms of aggreagate vote % as Labour had big majorities in the other 3 divisions.
They did well in Pendle.
I see they are now reduced 1 seat in Isle of Wight.
UKIP will have limited impact in London in terms of seats or shares. I expect hardly any defection from Tory voters in Inner London. They are emphatically not of the UKIP variety but are Liberal Cameron metropolitan type Tories. UKIP could have some success in places like Havering, Bexley on the Esssex and Kent fringes but not in outer West and South West London where it is a Tory/Labour/Lib Dem battle. More interestingly will be the UKIP performance in Metropolitan and Unitary authorities in 2014 again I think their success will be patchy and limited as it was this week UKIP scored remarkable shares in places like Lincolnshire, Kent & Norfolk but were weak in places like Durham, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Northumberland.
I am not entirely convinced by this argument. The lack of seats won in Nottinghamshire for example hides the real progress that UKIP made there. They gained 18.9% of the total vote - twice that of the Lib Dems. And that was in spite of not standing in all the seats. They also had 13 second places which hardly indicates an underlying weakness.
This was a set of elections with nothing for everyone. Labour weren't the beneficiary of a substantial mid-term surge, the Conservatives weren't able to keep a respectable vote share, the Lib Dems got pummelled and UKIP got precious few seats for all their votes.
Quite what it means for the future, if anything, is completely unclear.
Re 2014, UKIP will top the poll in the Euro elections. And that will give their candidates a boost at council level.
Most of London will be impervious to UKIP. Rich Conservatives in Inner London, and some suburbs, won't support them; nor will middle class trendies in Stokey and Islington; nor will ethnic minority voters. But, they will get considerable support, and likely councillors, in places like Bromley, Bexley, Havering, Dagenham, Hillingdon, Northern Redbridge, some parts of Enfield, Croydon, and Sutton.
Outside London, I'd expect them to do pretty well, in a lot of authorities that elect by thirds.
BBC Newsnight last night not ramming home what a bad night it was for the Tories tells the story. Some were expecting a 1993 result, instead we got a 2005 style result. With the proviso this is midterm.
Millipede on his way to Number 10? Not yet. Even the Sky projection had them with a minuscule majority, again even in midterm - and Labour know what a cr@p result this really is. Chukka Ummna continually mentioning Northamptonshire as a Labourite gain belies how far short of their own expectation they got.. Two things may now happen, both of which are not necessarily good for lefties: -UKIP voters return to a more red mat Tory party -UKIP usurps the Tories as the rigeht wing party
The Lib Dems' problems are far more existential than some will admit, on here.
Their status as third party is being usurped, their status as protest party has evaporated, they face wipe-out in Scotland and the north, their activist base is ageing, their membership is disappearing, their income is declining, their europhilia is incredibly unfashionable, they are newly and actively hated, they are tainted by government, and so on, and so forth.
It's about as bad as it could be, which is why the Lib Dems came SEVENTH in a by-election - the worst performance ever, and were reduced to FOURTH in the locals, their worst performance ever.
They will probably not disappear completely. They will always offer a home to anguished middle class lefties, and europhiles, who find Labour too crass and the Greens too maniacal. But how many people is this? 5-10% of the populace, at most?
My guess is that we will look back and see the Cleggasm as a final flickering of the liberal flame, a brief and deceptive fightback against a long term, inevitable and melancholy decline.
Come off it, all parties have ups and downs. The LDs have just finished 20 years of unbroken gains. A couple of years of downs is not the end of the world.
"How about the legendary Scottish "Yes" vote surge?"
I don't think anyone's described it as a "surge", but even you would have to concede that there's been a clear swing to Yes since the end of last year.
BBC Newsnight last night not ramming home what a bad night it was for the Tories tells the story. Some were expecting a 1993 result, instead we got a 2005 style result. With the proviso this is midterm.
Millipede on his way to Number 10? Not yet. Even the Sky projection had them with a minuscule majority, again even in midterm - and Labour know what a cr@p result this really is. Chukka Ummna continually mentioning Northamptonshire as a Labourite gain belies how far short of their own expectation they got.. Two things may now happen, both of which are not necessarily good for lefties: -UKIP voters return to a more red mat Tory party -UKIP usurps the Tories as the rigeht wing party
Under first past the post there is no point whatsoever in putting any effort at all into seats where you are not in contention and are never likely to be in contention.
The reason, as I keep banging on here, that the "system" seems to work so well for LAB is that the party gets this - as do the Lib Dems.
What mattered for both the reds an yellows was how well they did in what will be the GE2015 battlegrounds. By aggregating the vote LAB had notional gains in 20+ margnals. The LDs were holding, notionally, on almost all of the Westminster seats that they would be defending against the Tories.
The crappest performance of th night was by the Tories in Eastleigh. 17.9% vote share behind Ukip on 35.3% and the LDs on 37.3%.
The seat was always at the top of the blue target lists and they failed abysmally.
The Lib Dems' problems are far more existential than some will admit, on here.
Their status as third party is being usurped, their status as protest party has evaporated, they face wipe-out in Scotland and the north, their activist base is ageing, their membership is disappearing, their income is declining, their europhilia is incredibly unfashionable, they are newly and actively hated, they are tainted by government, and so on, and so forth.
It's about as bad as it could be, which is why the Lib Dems came SEVENTH in a by-election - the worst performance ever, and were reduced to FOURTH in the locals, their worst performance ever.
They will probably not disappear completely. They will always offer a home to anguished middle class lefties, and europhiles, who find Labour too crass and the Greens too maniacal. But how many people is this? 5-10% of the populace, at most?
My guess is that we will look back and see the Cleggasm as a final flickering of the liberal flame, a brief and deceptive fightback against a long term, inevitable and melancholy decline.
I think you missed out a couple of LibDem demographics on the slide: University students who will have tuition fees in their minds; and the fading anti-war vote that the LibDems picked up by opposing New Labours wars in the Middle East.
So what opportunities exist for the LibDems? In the Leicester suburbs of Oadby and Wigston they pick up support from middle class asians who have moved away from Labour because of high taxes and bureaucracy inflicted on their businesses, both by Labour nationally and also in Leicester city. This is in many ways a demographic that could be Tory, but is more internationalistic in outlook and put off by the foaming at the mouth europhobes. In parts of other cities, and parts of London in particular this is an emerging voter base.
There is also going to be a lot of room in the centre between a profligate Labour party and an increasingly right wing Conservative party. As the other parties depart the centre, a canny LibDem party could pick up useful votes.
Under first past the post there is no point whatsoever in putting any effort at all into seats where you are not in contention and are never likely to be in contention.
The reason, as I keep banging on here, that the "system" seems to work so well for LAB is that the party gets this - as do the Lib Dems.
What mattered for both the reds an yellows was how well they did in what will be the GE2015 battlegrounds. By aggregating the vote LAB had notional gains in 20+ margnals. The LDs were holding, notionally, on almost all of the Westminster seats that they would be defending against the Tories.
The crappest performance of th night was by the Tories in Eastleigh. 17.9% vote share behind Ukip on 35.3% and the LDs on 37.3%.
The seat was always at the top of the blue target lists and they failed abysmally.
The challenge for Labour is that, although they understand this, and therefore do not put effort into many constituencies where they haven't a hope of winning, they still talk about One Nation. It is hypocritical.
Jonathan, I don't think the Lib Dems' results were too bad overall. But, in 2005, they won Devon and Somerset, but this time, they went backwards in both. And, there a string of Southern councils which they held in the 1990s where they hardly feature now.
Question: say Farage et al did amazingly well at the Euros next year (electorate sees it has a free hit, Mickey Mouse elections doesn't matter etc etc, Tory vote collapses for one day at least into Farage's arms and quite a few Eurosceptic Lab/Lib see it as a referendum dry run?? ). Let's say he gets 35%+. Does Salmond seize on this painting lurid tales of the prospects of what amounts to a right wing English nationalist Govt in London in 2015 and ramp up the yes vote?
The Lib Dems' problems are far more existential than some will admit, on here.
Their status as third party is being usurped, their status as protest party has evaporated, they face wipe-out in Scotland and the north, their activist base is ageing, their membership is disappearing, their income is declining, their europhilia is incredibly unfashionable, they are newly and actively hated, they are tainted by government, and so on, and so forth.
It's about as bad as it could be, which is why the Lib Dems came SEVENTH in a by-election - the worst performance ever, and were reduced to FOURTH in the locals, their worst performance ever.
They will probably not disappear completely. They will always offer a home to anguished middle class lefties, and europhiles, who find Labour too crass and the Greens too maniacal. But how many people is this? 5-10% of the populace, at most?
My guess is that we will look back and see the Cleggasm as a final flickering of the liberal flame, a brief and deceptive fightback against a long term, inevitable and melancholy decline.
Come off it, all parties have ups and downs. The LDs have just finished 20 years of unbroken gains. A couple of years of downs is not the end of the world.
IIRC the number of LibDem councillors peaked in 1996.
While the Cleggasm was a very brief and ineffective interlude in a steady decline from 2006 onwards.
Next year the LibDems will lose another 100+ councillors again, in much of London they'll be pulverised.
Mike, surely the Eastleigh result suggests Conservatives are learning to vote tactically.
It does look like that in Eastleigh, which we may remember as a safe Tory seat not so long ago. In South Shields the Tory vote held up much better than the Lib Dem, even if little chance of winning. They kept about half their 2010 vote.
Tacit UKIP / Tory Eurosceptic pacts in the South East, South west and East Anglia have real tactical voting potential, even if formal pacts do not appear.
Under first past the post there is no point whatsoever in putting any effort at all into seats where you are not in contention and are never likely to be in contention.
The reason, as I keep banging on here, that the "system" seems to work so well for LAB is that the party gets this - as do the Lib Dems.
What mattered for both the reds an yellows was how well they did in what will be the GE2015 battlegrounds. By aggregating the vote LAB had notional gains in 20+ margnals. The LDs were holding, notionally, on almost all of the Westminster seats that they would be defending against the Tories.
The crappest performance of th night was by the Tories in Eastleigh. 17.9% vote share behind Ukip on 35.3% and the LDs on 37.3%.
The seat was always at the top of the blue target lists and they failed abysmally.
So the void left by this strategy is filled by the nascent Ukip army hoovering up anti government votes in the seats Labour and the Lib Dems have "cleverly" abandoned. Of course if you consider Ukip is a mere flash in the pan this is a sensible strategy. However even I as a Tory have reluctantly noted Ukip is stirring a level of interest in politics I haven't seen in many years. It is a party capable of attracting some quite dynamic young people into activist positions and with that will eventually come better organisation and efficiency. I suspect there is something of the Trojan horse mentality that is afflicting our established parties right now. Bear in mind 23% achieves few seats but not much of a further push completely alters the dynamic.
I've seen Farage debate Nats on a couple of occasions. Both times he's exploded their phony independence rhetoric and had them slavishly mouthing EUnionist platitudes.
"I've seen Farage debate Nats on a couple of occasions. Both times he's exploded their phony independence rhetoric and had them slavishly mouthing EUnionist platitudes."
How splendid. That would explain UKIP's spectacular election results in Scotland.
If you despise "EUnionism" so much, why did you take up your right as an EU citizen to live in Italy? #justaskin
I've seen Farage debate Nats on a couple of occasions. Both times he's exploded their phony independence rhetoric and had them slavishly mouthing EUnionist platitudes.
Didn't know he had debated directly. I was more musing on the indirect effects in Scotland of a really good UKIP election in the Euros. Of course if the Tory vote did collapse into UKIP's arms Dave might not be there too very long which is another thought. Someone may do a James Purnell and be followed this time rather than the Govt party wimping out. All just musings mind.
Harlow North: Lab 1637, Con 1229, UKIP 1147, LD 205, Green 115, TUSC 88 Harlow SE: Con 1346, Lab 1325, UKIP 1254, LD 131, Green 82 Harlow West (highest vote): Lab 2794, UKIP 2207, Con 1887, Green 291, LD 276, TUSC 270
Totals: Lab 5756, UKIP 4608, Con 4462, LD 612, Green 488, TUSC 358
Percentages: Lab 35.35%, UKIP 28.30%, Con 27.40%, LD 3.76%, Green 3.00%, TUSC 2.20%.
The Harlow constituency also includes about 30% of the electorate of North Weald & Nazeing which voted as follows:
Con 1669, UKIP 1170, Lab 421, Green 164, LD 83
The only thing one can do is take 30% of these votes and add them to the Harlow totals although that isn't very satisfactory since the whole division wouldn't have voted in the same way:
Harlow constituency (estimate):
Lab 5882 Con 4963 UKIP 4959 LD 637 Green 537 TUSC 358
Percentages:
Lab 33.9% Con 28.6% UKIP 28.6% LD 3.7% Green 3.1% TUSC 2.1%
Under first past the post there is no point whatsoever in putting any effort at all into seats where you are not in contention and are never likely to be in contention.
The reason, as I keep banging on here, that the "system" seems to work so well for LAB is that the party gets this - as do the Lib Dems.
The challenge for Labour is that, although they understand this, and therefore do not put effort into many constituencies where they haven't a hope of winning, they still talk about One Nation. It is hypocritical.
No - people know we mean that we aspire to govern for the whole country instead of just one class (they might or might not believe it, but they get the idea), not that we commit ourselves to fighting to the death for every council seat in Little Snodding.
"Kelly , as a French Canadian Irish American , if you despise Britain so much , why don't you leave ?"
Speaking from experience again? I love my part of Britain, as you know. The only thing I hate about Britain is the repugnant ethnic nationalism of people like yourself, who think that I can't be British or Scottish because of my ethnic background. Ironically, "EUnionism" seems to have purged this island of some of those attitudes, albeit our gain is Italy's loss.
"Kelly , as a French Canadian Irish American , if you despise Britain so much , why don't you leave ?"
Speaking from experience again? I love my part of Britain, as you know. The only thing I hate about Britain is the repugnant ethnic nationalism of people like yourself, who think that I can't be British or Scottish because of my ethnic background. Ironically, "EUnionism" seems to have purged this island of some of those attitudes, albeit our gain is Italy's loss.
For a bloke who finds ethnic nationalism repugnant, you've got a pretty big downer on the Irish.
If it's okay to be proud to be Scottish, Welsh or Irish, it should also be okay to be proud to be English. But for some reason a lot of people have a problem with that notion.
General Election 2010: Ribble Valley[9]PartyCandidateVotes%±% Conservative Nigel Evans 26,298 50.3+5.4 Labour Paul Foster 11,529 22.0−7.8 Liberal Democrat Allan Knox 10,732 20.5−2.1 UKIP Stephen Rush 3,496 6.7+4.0 Independent Tony Johnson 2320.4N/A
Majority 14,769 28.3+13.2 Turnout 52,287 67.0+5.5 Conservative hold Swing+6.6
Interesting piece by Douglas Carswell regarding independence, English & Scottish:
Most one would agree with: Greater England outwith Scotland is very much the same as the UK. But since when has Prussia been bigger than England?
Even after the sequestration of Hanover and Cleves Prussia was still nothing more than a Polish vassel upstart. Add in the Bavarian, Austrian and Danish territories and Prussia becomes Germany.
These divisions have an electorate of about 43,000 which means there are another 27,000 voters in the rural areas of the constituency.
I think we can safely say that if Labour were only ahead by 657 votes before the rural areas are added the Conservatives would have carried the constituency relatively comfortably.
"As it keeps being mentioned - I've just listened to EdM on WATO - hell's teeth, what a shocker."
Thanks for that Plato. I wasn't shocked , it confirmed me in my opinion the EdM isn't up to snuff. In fact I wouldn't trust him with a pair of scissors.
Of course you wouldnt Moniker. You wouldnt trust Ed if he'd just discovered the recipe for cols fusion. Yawn.
Parts of the Stafford Trent Valley, Brewood, Gnosall, and Penkridge divisions are included in the Stafford constituency. They all voted Conservative, mostly by large margins.
I write as a Tory who lost his county council seat yesterday to the Lib Dems, (before Ian Stewart points out the fact).
I think you, and the meedja are all rather missing the point. Yesterday was the 3rd anniversary of the Tory led government being formed so it was always going to be difficult.
What happened yesterday was a vote against. It wasn't a vote against anything in particular, just a vote against allness. How that coalesced varied council by council, division by division and even village by village.
So here in Tim's South Lakeland the Lib Dems consolidated what they previously held and took me out, leaving three Tories standing. UKIP had no noticable effect. In Woodcock's South Lakeland UKIP did have an effect taking enough Tory votes in High Furness to elect a Lib Dem. In Ulverston the safe Labour seat lost four years ago went back to Labour. The safe Tory seat remains Tory.
In Eden we took back a seat from the LDs which we should never have lost four years ago and lost one to the LD who appears in Seven Up. Three very marginal Tories (majorities much less than 50) all held on and consolidated, one taking his majority over 250.
Barrow was a messy result four years ago because of a school academy issue with several Independents elected and some unsuspecting Tories. This has reverted to type with just one Tory standing and all the rest Labour.
Elsewhere, two very interesting and apparently unreported results where the sitting Labour councillor was deselected. Both stood as Independents against the official Labour candidate and both walked home. Having worked with them for 4 years I can vouch for the fact they are both excellent councillors.
All this adds up to a NOC council with Labour in the lead and the Tories second, much a reverse of the 2009 result.
To government nationally this is not too bad at all and the Cumbria coalition which emerges will probably not give it too many headaches.
It is my take on the results elsewhere that the seats lost were always going to be lost, many won by accident four years ago. If they are held by UKIP, rather than Labour or even the Lib Dems then for national governement that is good. By and large these upper tier councils and unitaries remain essentially friendly to the aspirations of national goverment.
The results will also leave the English Councils' organisation, whose name escapes me for the second, in Tory control. Not an insignificant point.
Interesting piece by Douglas Carswell regarding independence, English & Scottish:
Most one would agree with: Greater England outwith Scotland is very much the same as the UK. But since when has Prussia been bigger than England?
Even after the sequestration of Hanover and Cleves Prussia was still nothing more than a Polish vassel upstart. Add in the Bavarian, Austrian and Danish territories and Prussia becomes Germany.
Comments
I swear that I had read a SeanT post that UKIP had decisively won the Mayoral election of Doncaster.
I just saw in the BBC website that Labour won. Did UKIP win for just one day ?
EDIT
"Fuel duty is higher in the UK than in any other major economy. Taxes on diesel for commercial use are particularly high, over 50 per cent higher than in France and Germany and over 500 per cent higher than in the USA. Industries heavily dependent on road transport in the UK are therefore at a major competitive disadvantage."
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/time-to-excise-fuel-duty
Punters would be wise to reflect on the dangers of over-reaction - in either direction.
They would also be wise not to bet against tim on this matter!
I think you, and the meedja are all rather missing the point. Yesterday was the 3rd anniversary of the Tory led government being formed so it was always going to be difficult.
What happened yesterday was a vote against. It wasn't a vote against anything in particular, just a vote against allness. How that coalesced varied council by council, division by division and even village by village.
So here in Tim's South Lakeland the Lib Dems consolidated what they previously held and took me out, leaving three Tories standing. UKIP had no noticable effect. In Woodcock's South Lakeland UKIP did have an effect taking enough Tory votes in High Furness to elect a Lib Dem. In Ulverston the safe Labour seat lost four years ago went back to Labour. The safe Tory seat remains Tory.
In Eden we took back a seat from the LDs which we should never have lost four years ago and lost one to the LD who appears in Seven Up. Three very marginal Tories (majorities much less than 50) all held on and consolidated, one taking his majority over 250.
Barrow was a messy result four years ago because of a school academy issue with several Independents elected and some unsuspecting Tories. This has reverted to type with just one Tory standing and all the rest Labour.
Elsewhere, two very interesting and apparently unreported results where the sitting Labour councillor was deselected. Both stood as Independents against the official Labour candidate and both walked home. Having worked with them for 4 years I can vouch for the fact they are both excellent councillors.
All this adds up to a NOC council with Labour in the lead and the Tories second, much a reverse of the 2009 result.
To government nationally this is not too bad at all and the Cumbria coalition which emerges will probably not give it too many headaches.
It is my take on the results elsewhere that the seats lost were always going to be lost, many won by accident four years ago. If they are held by UKIP, rather than Labour or even the Lib Dems then for national governement that is good. By and large these upper tier councils and unitaries remain essentially friendly to the aspirations of national goverment.
The results will also leave the English Councils' organisation, whose name escapes me for the second, in Tory control. Not an insignificant point.
Thanks for that very interesting and insightful post. Commiserations.
They're not 'Tory votes' they're their own votes.
People have a right to vote for whichever candidate and whichever party they like.
If the Conservatives don't have the right people or policies to attract votes that's their own fault not that of the voters or that of the parties the voters chose to vote for instead.
http://i.imgur.com/VABTaYQ.png
You didn't know what they were and you had no instructions.
You'd struggle to begin with and probably have several false starts but if you kept at it you would end up assembling something.
It might not be the right thing and it might not be structurally sound. It would be sneered at by more sophisticated people but it would be something which some other people would like and find useful.
That's what UKIP is.
They've found themselves a demographic - the provincial private sector wwc.
That's not enough for them to win major elections but it is enough for them to get some MPs elected and overall controll on some district councils.
And more importantly its enough for them to break up the political system both structurally and policy wise.
Even before that adjustment, the BBC were only giving the raw vote shares for their "key wards", rather than all wards contested, which was a bit peculiar.
I sort of take the point but it is one based on sophistry. If there hadn't been a UKIP candidate then the division in question would have almost certainly have returned the Tory candidate.
Hanif Kureishi, the best-selling author, claims to have lost £120,000 of his life savings after being tricked by a suspected fraudster."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10037179/Hanif-Kureishi-loses-120000-life-savings-in-suspected-fraud.html
So we've had years of the Cameroons aiming Conservative strategy at greens, gays, upper middle class women or whatever happens to the fashionable guardianista group of the time.
All the time ignoring, even deliberately fueling, the resentment which was building up against them from people who have been losing out during the last decade.
With the result we saw this week which has cost you your place on the council through no fault of your own.
The Conservatives wouldn't have lost if there hadn't been a UKIP candidate.
But if former Conservative voters hadn't felt let down they would still have voted Conservative.
The person you need to blame is Osborne - the self described 'genius' who thought that Conservative voters had nowhere else to go and so could be ignored by the leadership while they went off chasing more fashionable demographics.
Define unaffordable, lower middle-class and voters. Most of South-East London would be classed as 'middle-class', albeit with > £250k homes (>£1.3 million in Blackheath/Dulwich Village). Even rental-properties are a reasonable ~£1K P.C.M. (half what Dr Sven Palmer would rape the English tax-payer for [if he was still an MP]).
There are plenty of folk who do well within the commuter-belt: What's lacking is a will to vote. Under Thatch' most of the Kentish-lands were blue....
Hard luck old chap. Please keep posting your insightful thoughts.
They held up quite decently (considering the current political climate for them. They are still trailing Lab 43 to 30%) in City of Durham area. Also in Ashfield.
In Burnley they did ok in terms of Cllrs (2 seats out of 6 and losing the third by 7 votes) but they 18% behind in terms of aggreagate vote % as Labour had big majorities in the other 3 divisions.
They did well in Pendle.
I see they are now reduced 1 seat in Isle of Wight.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AswNZWYSW1uvdGpwR2JEcndFcDRqbDNuY1I5ZDNrWGc&usp=sharing
It has as much to do with how uneven your votes are, as how many votes you get!
Any probs, give me a shout...
Re: money
The LDs seem to be the default choice when the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust are handing out cash.
http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/blog/entry/donor-of-the-week-the-joseph-rowntree-reform-trust-ltd
Lab: 8,490 (37.8%)
Con: 7,759 (34.6%)
UKIP: 4,801 (21.4%)
LD: 668 (3.0%)
Green: 580 (2.6%)
Ind: 56 (0.2%)
Socialist Labour: 42 (0.2%)
Justice: 40 (0.2%)
Changes from 2010:
Lab: +5.5%
Con: -10.2%
UKIP: +18.5%
LD: -11.4%
Green: +1.3%
Swing, Con to Lab: 7.9%
Quite what it means for the future, if anything, is completely unclear.
Most of London will be impervious to UKIP. Rich Conservatives in Inner London, and some suburbs, won't support them; nor will middle class trendies in Stokey and Islington; nor will ethnic minority voters. But, they will get considerable support, and likely councillors, in places like Bromley, Bexley, Havering, Dagenham, Hillingdon, Northern Redbridge, some parts of Enfield, Croydon, and Sutton.
Outside London, I'd expect them to do pretty well, in a lot of authorities that elect by thirds.
http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/apps/wsccElect/public/home.htm
Millipede on his way to Number 10? Not yet. Even the Sky projection had them with a minuscule majority, again even in midterm - and Labour know what a cr@p result this really is. Chukka Ummna continually mentioning Northamptonshire as a Labourite gain belies how far short of their own expectation they got.. Two things may now happen, both of which are not necessarily good for lefties:
-UKIP voters return to a more red mat Tory party
-UKIP usurps the Tories as the rigeht wing party
"Has there been?"
Yes.
Kelly " Yes."
Could you be a good chap , Kelly , and back up your claim with some numbers ?
Under first past the post there is no point whatsoever in putting any effort at all into seats where you are not in contention and are never likely to be in contention.
The reason, as I keep banging on here, that the "system" seems to work so well for LAB is that the party gets this - as do the Lib Dems.
What mattered for both the reds an yellows was how well they did in what will be the GE2015 battlegrounds. By aggregating the vote LAB had notional gains in 20+ margnals. The LDs were holding, notionally, on almost all of the Westminster seats that they would be defending against the Tories.
The crappest performance of th night was by the Tories in Eastleigh. 17.9% vote share behind Ukip on 35.3% and the LDs on 37.3%.
The seat was always at the top of the blue target lists and they failed abysmally.
So what opportunities exist for the LibDems? In the Leicester suburbs of Oadby and Wigston they pick up support from middle class asians who have moved away from Labour because of high taxes and bureaucracy inflicted on their businesses, both by Labour nationally and also in Leicester city. This is in many ways a demographic that could be Tory, but is more internationalistic in outlook and put off by the foaming at the mouth europhobes. In parts of other cities, and parts of London in particular this is an emerging voter base.
There is also going to be a lot of room in the centre between a profligate Labour party and an increasingly right wing Conservative party. As the other parties depart the centre, a canny LibDem party could pick up useful votes.
http://i.imgur.com/VABTaYQ.png
'The crappest performance of th night was by the Tories in Eastleigh. 17.9% vote share behind Ukip on 35.3% and the LDs on 37.3%.'
Amazing,UKIP only 2% behind the Lib Dems,just needs Diane James to stand again plus a small Tory tactical vote and the Lib Dems are history..
This makes my case. Uneven vote shares are what matter.
While the Cleggasm was a very brief and ineffective interlude in a steady decline from 2006 onwards.
Next year the LibDems will lose another 100+ councillors again, in much of London they'll be pulverised.
http://tinyurl.com/cybnuvj
Tacit UKIP / Tory Eurosceptic pacts in the South East, South west and East Anglia have real tactical voting potential, even if formal pacts do not appear.
So a loss of councillors is often followed by rapid collapse at the next set of elections.
I've seen Farage debate Nats on a couple of occasions. Both times he's exploded their phony independence rhetoric and had them slavishly mouthing EUnionist platitudes.
How splendid. That would explain UKIP's spectacular election results in Scotland.
If you despise "EUnionism" so much, why did you take up your right as an EU citizen to live in Italy? #justaskin
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100215302/the-conservative-leadership-is-paying-for-its-arrogance/
Harlow North: Lab 1637, Con 1229, UKIP 1147, LD 205, Green 115, TUSC 88
Harlow SE: Con 1346, Lab 1325, UKIP 1254, LD 131, Green 82
Harlow West (highest vote): Lab 2794, UKIP 2207, Con 1887, Green 291, LD 276, TUSC 270
Totals: Lab 5756, UKIP 4608, Con 4462, LD 612, Green 488, TUSC 358
Percentages: Lab 35.35%, UKIP 28.30%, Con 27.40%, LD 3.76%, Green 3.00%, TUSC 2.20%.
The Harlow constituency also includes about 30% of the electorate of North Weald & Nazeing which voted as follows:
Con 1669, UKIP 1170, Lab 421, Green 164, LD 83
The only thing one can do is take 30% of these votes and add them to the Harlow totals although that isn't very satisfactory since the whole division wouldn't have voted in the same way:
Harlow constituency (estimate):
Lab 5882
Con 4963
UKIP 4959
LD 637
Green 537
TUSC 358
Percentages:
Lab 33.9%
Con 28.6%
UKIP 28.6%
LD 3.7%
Green 3.1%
TUSC 2.1%
Changes since 2010:
Lab +0.2%
Con -16.3%
UKIP +25.0%
LD -10.0%
Swing, Con to Lab: 8.3%
Speaking from experience again? I love my part of Britain, as you know. The only thing I hate about Britain is the repugnant ethnic nationalism of people like yourself, who think that I can't be British or Scottish because of my ethnic background. Ironically, "EUnionism" seems to have purged this island of some of those attitudes, albeit our gain is Italy's loss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeDk6ZeGNnU
Could someone rework it for the Cameroons ?
"We're a bunch of arrogant b@stards who hate poor people"
;-)
If it's okay to be proud to be Scottish, Welsh or Irish, it should also be okay to be proud to be English. But for some reason a lot of people have a problem with that notion.
All in on a Ukip MP !
Conservative Nigel Evans 26,298 50.3+5.4
Labour Paul Foster 11,529 22.0−7.8
Liberal Democrat Allan Knox 10,732 20.5−2.1
UKIP Stephen Rush 3,496 6.7+4.0
Independent Tony Johnson 2320.4N/A
Majority 14,769 28.3+13.2
Turnout 52,287 67.0+5.5
Conservative hold Swing+6.6
Even after the sequestration of Hanover and Cleves Prussia was still nothing more than a Polish vassel upstart. Add in the Bavarian, Austrian and Danish territories and Prussia becomes Germany.
:history-failure:
Just added up the votes for the four urban Stafford divisions:
Lab: 5,593 (39.7%)
Con: 4,936 (35.0%)
UKIP: 2,745 (19.5%)
Green: 621 (4.4%)
TUSC: 189 (1.3%)
These divisions have an electorate of about 43,000 which means there are another 27,000 voters in the rural areas of the constituency.
I think we can safely say that if Labour were only ahead by 657 votes before the rural areas are added the Conservatives would have carried the constituency relatively comfortably.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339699/Im-gay-says-Tory-MP-Nigel-Evans-voted-equal-rights-homosexuals.html
I think they might win it if it goes to a BE. Though it seems their Lancs results were relatively unspectacular. They have the mojo now though.
"The Deputy speaker, Nigel Evans, has been arrested on suspicion of rape and sexual assault":
http://news.sky.com/story/1086933/deputy-speaker-arrested-on-suspicion-of-rape
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/ribblevalley/
Those figures are on a 67% turnout with UKIP gaining some 4% from the previous GE.
Then he came back in 1992 GE.
Parts of the Stafford Trent Valley, Brewood, Gnosall, and Penkridge divisions are included in the Stafford constituency. They all voted Conservative, mostly by large margins.
On a musical theme , Cameron is Genesis , EdM is Yes , Clegg is ELP , Salmond is The Bay City Rollers and Farage is The Ramones.
Innocent until proven guilty remember.
http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/info/200221/elections/1446/lancashire_county_council_election_2013
About as Tory as it gets, though with patchy bits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-DR-Prussia.svg