It is thought that a central component will be the suggestion that Holyrood should be given more tax powers. The Liberal Democrats are proposing 50% of revenue should be raised by the Scottish Parliament and Labour 40%; the Scottish Conservatives' plan will be "in the same ballpark".
"This time the Tories will not be putting the brakes on," declared a senior source with close knowledge of the commission process. "We will not be making the mistakes of the past. "
I hope none of the main parties do not block Nigel Farage from participating in the leaders debates for the next general election. I for one would like to hear his parties policies for the UK. A light needs to be on,what they propose.
Yes, it would be a travesty if UKIP is denied a place in the debates.
If you took the OFCOM on fact value, then no fourth party could possibly ever join the debates. They don't get equal or reasonable media exposure, hence they get no MP's and guess what they are denied a place in the next debate !
We need Mr Farage [ pronounced as "Garage" - we are English ] to articulate his policies and explain like everybody else how they would work and how they would be funded !
I wonder if "media exposure" is that big a deal?
For the past 6 weeks all the national print and TV media told the nation that UKIP were dreadful people. Their local election performance appears to have been unaffected by this, and they remain favourites to win the EU Parliament vote.
There are lots of internet and local media outlets that can help UKIP get their message across to potential supporters. As can the traditional political campaigning methods of knocking on doors, and hosting public meetings!
Not to mention online news sources such as here and places like Breitbart. Clicking on the links here that people post can be a useful way of finding out news which did not exist a few years back
Everyone is going to have to get used to a four party system, including OfCom.
I have to say I'm struggling with the idea that the Locals were a disaster for UKIP. They looked pretty good to me. The issue now, surely, is whether they (and the Euros) are the start of something or a high water mark. One thing seems certain - UKIP voters were by far the most motivated to turn out on Thursday. To have a chance of capitalising on that UKIP needs to maintain its momentum. With that in mind, one thing to watch out for will be the manifesto and the non-EU/immigration policies UKIP develops. Does the leadership and party core stick to its right wing economic outlook or will there be a swing to Old Labour? A lot may hinge on that come the general election.
I would expect the majority of UKIP general election policies to be linked to EU membership. Energy should be a good better-off-with-UKIP policy for them.
I'm expecting a full slate of policies including things such as grammar schools. I suspect though things that the other parties would dearly like to do but cannot due to the EU having the competency in this area will feature prominently though. This can reach far and wide. For example they could have a manifesto commitment to abolish the present railway structure and replace it with the old "big four" owning and operating both track and trains in a single company which currently cannot be done due to EU market rules that demand separation of track and train (and resulted in the structure of privatisation Major had to accept rather than his preferred option of the return of the big 4.
That really is not going to cut the mustard. Tax and spend plans, please.
Everyone is going to have to get used to a four party system, including OfCom.
I have to say I'm struggling with the idea that the Locals were a disaster for UKIP. They looked pretty good to me. The issue now, surely, is whether they (and the Euros) are the start of something or a high water mark. One thing seems certain - UKIP voters were by far the most motivated to turn out on Thursday. To have a chance of capitalising on that UKIP needs to maintain its momentum. With that in mind, one thing to watch out for will be the manifesto and the non-EU/immigration policies UKIP develops. Does the leadership and party core stick to its right wing economic outlook or will there be a swing to Old Labour? A lot may hinge on that come the general election.
I would expect the majority of UKIP general election policies to be linked to EU membership. Energy should be a good better-off-with-UKIP policy for them.
I'm expecting a full slate of policies including things such as grammar schools. I suspect though things that the other parties would dearly like to do but cannot due to the EU having the competency in this area will feature prominently though. This can reach far and wide. For example they could have a manifesto commitment to abolish the present railway structure and replace it with the old "big four" owning and operating both track and trains in a single company which currently cannot be done due to EU market rules that demand separation of track and train (and resulted in the structure of privatisation Major had to accept rather than his preferred option of the return of the big 4.
That really is not going to cut the mustard. Tax and spend plans, please.
No point asking me I'm not a member, I just vote for them so what do I know.
There are only two possibilities (assuming No wins): 1) such promises are kept. Scotland gets even more devolution. England gets increasingly pissed off.
2) such promises are not kept. Scotland gets pissed off and it might even be considered legitimate grounds for another referendum, (joy of joys).
The West Lothian Question has to be answered. It'd be a help if politicians got around to acknowledging the question.
Mr. Dave, if Farage wants to he can effectively bypass traditional media by using social networks like Twitter and Youtube.
Of course, that's not without peril, as a certain Gordon Brown proved.
I came across a pro-UKIP video by Pat Condell the other day. Browsing his other videos I was surprised to see his stuff is translated (subtitles) into a variety of languages, for viewing around Europe. This is a one man band!
UKIP's party administration can also be aided by modern tech. UKIP.org is hosted on the 'nation builder' platform.
Everyone is going to have to get used to a four party system, including OfCom.
I have to say I'm struggling with the idea that the Locals were a disaster for UKIP. They looked pretty good to me. The issue now, surely, is whether they (and the Euros) are the start of something or a high water mark. One thing seems certain - UKIP voters were by far the most motivated to turn out on Thursday. To have a chance of capitalising on that UKIP needs to maintain its momentum. With that in mind, one thing to watch out for will be the manifesto and the non-EU/immigration policies UKIP develops. Does the leadership and party core stick to its right wing economic outlook or will there be a swing to Old Labour? A lot may hinge on that come the general election.
I would expect the majority of UKIP general election policies to be linked to EU membership. Energy should be a good better-off-with-UKIP policy for them.
I'm expecting a full slate of policies including things such as grammar schools. I suspect though things that the other parties would dearly like to do but cannot due to the EU having the competency in this area will feature prominently though. This can reach far and wide. For example they could have a manifesto commitment to abolish the present railway structure and replace it with the old "big four" owning and operating both track and trains in a single company which currently cannot be done due to EU market rules that demand separation of track and train (and resulted in the structure of privatisation Major had to accept rather than his preferred option of the return of the big 4.
That really is not going to cut the mustard. Tax and spend plans, please.
No point asking me I'm not a member, I just vote for them so what do I know.
Yes, I'm not asking you personally. But the other parties and the media need to focus on these questions, instead of the drivel about whether or not they are racists.
I hope none of the main parties do not block Nigel Farage from participating in the leaders debates for the next general election. I for one would like to hear his parties policies for the UK. A light needs to be on,what they propose.
Agreed. I'd very much like to hear what they've got to say about, for example, tax and the minimum wage.
As would I. UKIP may chase votes from all over the political spectrum just like the others, but they at least often are willing to try suggesting things the others have not attempted for quite a while, for better and for worse, and would make things much more interesting.
I hope none of the main parties do not block Nigel Farage from participating in the leaders debates for the next general election. I for one would like to hear his parties policies for the UK. A light needs to be on,what they propose.
We need Mr Farage [ pronounced as "Garage" - we are English ]
That doesn't make it clear to me. I pronounce Garage as 'Gah-Rarge', but others pronounce it closer to 'Gah-ridge', that's why I pronounce it 'Far-rarge' in the first place. Have I been pronouncing Garage in a non-english way?
Good points Morris regarding a mini-me Conservative party. It would alienate any anti eu left wing supporters .
My point sill stands regarding the debates , hard to see the conservatives giving Farage a run , when they are framing it for the only two possible PM`S. I believe they will be stifled, which could backfire.
Mr. Dave, technology presents an issue for politicians in two ways. As well needing to take advantage of its potential, a lot of people opt out of it to a significant degree. Older people are less likely to be online, and increasing numbers of younger people, whilst not entirely disconnected, are opting out of a lot of online stuff.
Over-reliance on a tech approach to campaigning would lead to huge swathes of people being missed entirely, but a failure to engage with online campaigning would do the same.
David has got caught in the media narrative. Look at the numbers. The locals were a disaster for Ukip - dropping more than a quarter of their national vote share over the past year.
The Euros certainly look interesting and I am putting more money on Ukip not coming first.
Well you've certainly got yourself an opinion there Mike and its a brave call you've made.
If you're right you'll be entitled to remind us all till doomsday.
If you're wrong I hope you don't get upset about the resulting laughter.
However from the Conservative point of view the mantra will be there is only two possible prime ministers Cameron or Milliband therefore the debates will be stifled I expect.
Also it hard to see why the Conservatives would not do a deal with UKIP, as they went into coalition with the Lib Dems to gain power, so why not do a deal to stay in power, with a party more closely aligned to many of your potential voters.
The deal done with the Lib Dems was after the election and was about establishing a majority in a parliament already elected. There's a huge difference between that and a pre-election pact.
Of course, if UKIP were to return, say, 35 MPs and the Tories ended on 305, I'm sure negotiations would take place then. Unlikely scenario though.
What an interesting difference of opinion we have this morning!
I've been posting on this site almost as long as it's been up and over the years have developed a healthy respect for the views of David and of course OGH. My money's on UKIP, and I'm not inclined to lay off, but it's going to be a tense wait until those boxes are opened.
Fortunately I have the Play Off Finals to distract me.....
Over-reliance on a tech approach to campaigning would lead to huge swathes of people being missed entirely, but a failure to engage with online campaigning would do the same.
I've been very impressed by the size of the audiences UKIP has attracted to their public meetings. This is how political campaigning used to be carried out before national radio and TV became so dominant. It's clearly still an effective method of contacting new supporters and enthusing the already committed.
David has got caught in the media narrative. Look at the numbers. The locals were a disaster for Ukip - dropping more than a quarter of their national vote share over the past year.
The Euros certainly look interesting and I am putting more money on Ukip not coming first.
Well you've certainly got yourself an opinion there Mike and its a brave call you've made.
If you're right you'll be entitled to remind us all till doomsday.
If you're wrong I hope you don't get upset about the resulting laughter.
I would actually like to see UKIP not win the Euros purely on a humour basis, as it would be so unexpected to the narrative. I think that narrative is correct, but what fun it would be if somehow it turned out people really did believe the Tories' strategy of negotiation would work (Hah, fat chance), or that Labour's strategy of...of...ok I don't really know what their EU approach is besides staying in while saying they are not keen on it.
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
This interests me.
The Scottish Tories have achieved more than 15% (and less than 20%) of the popular vote in every national Scottish election in the last 20 years as far as I can tell, both to Westminster and Holyrood.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
If we end up with a separated Scotland, I'd say that may well lead to a Scottish Conservative recovery. Clearly there is a strong core support at that level.
Yes 1 MP and almost all their MSP's from the consolation list. That might give you a clue.
it would be monumentally stupid for UKIP, which has many leftwing supporters, to effectively declare itself a mini-me Conservative Party.
UKIP's stunning progress in seats such as sunderland and rotherham would b thrown into full reverse if Farage did a deal with Cameron.
However, I suppose Farage might be open to not to running candidates in seats where he deems the sitting tory sufficiently eurosceptic and sufficiently 'small c tory'.
He could also run candidates to attract leftt wing votes to help the tories in seats like Southampton Itchen.
Deals with tories behind Cam's back? I guess its a possibility. Meetings over beer in quiet country pubs? could happen...
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
What on earth are "Senior Treasury officials" doing joining the spinning fest surrounding a highly political campaign? Besides securing whatever bonus is associated with meeting their explicitly stated target of helping oppose Scottish independence? How far the UK civil service has fallen.
This is my experience. The politicisation of the civil service that began under Nu Labour and has accelerated ever since. The Civil Service used to be about advice to Ministers and delivery of policy that had been properly thought out. Now it's little more than an extension of the message management machine. In the 20 years I have been involved in policy work there is no doubt that that the change in ways of working has been reflected in how it is portrayed on TV. That is from Yes Minister to The Thick of It and the London 2012 spoof.
My experience goes back to 2010, of course, but certainly as PPS to Malcolm Wicks (middle-ranking energy minister) the dividing line was extremely clear and nothing like In The Thick of It - the moment anything relating to political advantage was discussed, we smiled wryly at the civil servants and said we've got to discuss politics, sorry, and they immediately left the room. In PQs, the briefings would note the background of the questioner and his or her likely particular concerns (e.g. "Has previously expressed support at Select Committee in March for nuclear and thinks Government is not doing enough on that") but would not suggest an appropriate evasive or political reply. I was quite impressed by the professionalism - actually thought the borderline would be more blurred. Much the same applied as PPS to Margaret Beckett at DEFRA, though I was more junior there and less involved in policy.
I currently know a relatively senior civil servant in another ministry through a games connection. He is privately not a supporter of the government but keen to help it work well - again, he seems to me to keep his opinions and his work appropriately distinct.
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
The SNP are experts at it:
Treasury sources said they decided to conduct the most “comprehensive” analysis yet of a separate Scotland’s finances after the Scottish Government’s 670-page White Paper on independence included only a single page of figures covering one financial year.........
Civil servants have calculated that Scotland would need the population increase over the next 20 years – the equivalent of a city the size of Edinburgh – because there are fewer workers north of the Border paying taxes to fund each OAP’s pension......
The White Paper suggested increasing immigration to help meet the pension funding shortfall but gave no indication about the scale of the influx that would be required.
There are only two possibilities (assuming No wins): 1) such promises are kept. Scotland gets even more devolution. England gets increasingly pissed off.
2) such promises are not kept. Scotland gets pissed off and it might even be considered legitimate grounds for another referendum, (joy of joys).
The West Lothian Question has to be answered. It'd be a help if politicians got around to acknowledging the question.
But does it even exist in any meaningful sense?? Virtually all votes of importance these days have Barnett consequentials - on which it is therefore legitimate for Scottish MPs to vote. Even the student fees could be argued on that basis [though IIRC the SNP still abstained - ironically as the SNP solution is looking more and more the fiscally competent solution as time goes on, compared to Mr Willetts's].
(I'm not seriously suggesting Scots should vote on such things as a Leeds Navigation developer's private bill.)
I remember the days when Scotland was controlled from London, by a party with only about a sixth of Scottish MPs. That meant the entire legal system, for one thing, was controlled by outsiders who had no stake in it themselves but could legislate for it. That is a real West Lothian Question. But I don't recall too many Tories complaining about the situation.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
What makes the UKIP breakthrough especially important is that its coming from the key voters in the key areas - swing voters in medium sized towns.
This is one reason why there has been so little Con-Lab swing in the polls - the swing voters have been moving to UKIP instead.
Now both the Conservatives and Labour will have hopes of scaring these UKIP voters to their side next year.
I suspect this will be harder than they expect.
Firstly because the UKIP voters are very much hostile to both large parties and secondly because there's little threat of a strong government after 2015. We'll either have a Con-LD coalition, a Lab-LD coalition or a very weak minority government.
Thrasher was on SkyNews yesterday noting how difficult these areas were for UKIP and calling interpretations that they hadn't done well pretty 'mean' but I'm sure Mike can explain that he's just another nutter kipper, ruled by his emotions and unable to accept evidence and facts when it doesn't suit him.
More broadly, when even the experts can't talk about NEV without making a faux pas (i.e. talking arrant nonsense about locations of constituencies) how can we have much confidence the projections are as clever and accurate as we are all required to assume in order to win our 'grown up and sensible' card around here?
The reality of votes cast suggests 23% was a bit punchy last year, but also that 17% is too low this year. After factoring in split tickets, non contested wards and pro-UKIP differential turnout in areas with no locals, I'm expecting 30%+ tomorrow, and struggling to give much credence to people who believe UKIP's vote has collapsed by more than 25% in a year.
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
The SNP are experts at it:
Treasury sources said they decided to conduct the most “comprehensive” analysis yet of a separate Scotland’s finances after the Scottish Government’s 670-page White Paper on independence included only a single page of figures covering one financial year.........
Civil servants have calculated that Scotland would need the population increase over the next 20 years – the equivalent of a city the size of Edinburgh – because there are fewer workers north of the Border paying taxes to fund each OAP’s pension......
The White Paper suggested increasing immigration to help meet the pension funding shortfall but gave no indication about the scale of the influx that would be required.
Yes, yes, we've heard it all before. But, by all means, give the old gramophone record another crank. This time it it sure to convert all those floating voters, unlike the previous ten million performances of the cracked record.
Just one page of economic analysis in a 670 page White Paper?
That didn't spell out that "some" immigration was "500,000"?
You can hardly complain if someone else is doing the homework the SNP should have done.
But we know how the SNP deals with dissenting opinion in Scotland:
SNP MSPs have been accused of "doctoring" a Holyrood committee report on an independent Scotland's EU membership.
The SNP only claim Scotland is too wee and too poor to have it's own currency with too small a tax base to fund their wild schemes.
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
In a withering attack on one of the first minister's flagship policies for September's referendum, the Treasury said Salmond's Swedish-style proposals were based on hiring about 21,000 unemployed women who did not exist.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I
You may be being a little blase about the effect that results like Sunderland and Rotherham must surely be having on Labour's northern legions. They must be up in arms. Stringer could barely suppress his fury on the BBC Thursday night. He must be one of many.
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
What on earth are "Senior Treasury officials" doing joining the spinning fest surrounding a highly political campaign? Besides securing whatever bonus is associated with meeting their explicitly stated target of helping oppose Scottish independence? How far the UK civil service has fallen.
This is my experience. The politicisation of the civil service that began under Nu Labour and has accelerated ever since. The Civil Service used to be about advice to Ministers and delivery of policy that had been properly thought out. Now it's little more than an extension of the message management machine. In the 20 years I have been involved in policy work there is no doubt that that the change in ways of working has been reflected in how it is portrayed on TV. That is from Yes Minister to The Thick of It and the London 2012 spoof.
My experience goes back to 2010, of course, but certainly as PPS to Malcolm Wicks (middle-ranking energy minister) the dividing line was extremely clear and nothing like In The Thick of It - the moment anything relating to political advantage was discussed, we smiled wryly at the civil servants and said we've got to discuss politics, sorry, and they immediately left the room. In PQs, the briefings would note the background of the questioner and his or her likely particular concerns (e.g. "Has previously expressed support at Select Committee in March for nuclear and thinks Government is not doing enough on that") but would not suggest an appropriate evasive or political reply. I was quite impressed by the professionalism - actually thought the borderline would be more blurred. Much the same applied as PPS to Margaret Beckett at DEFRA, though I was more junior there and less involved in policy.
I currently know a relatively senior civil servant in another ministry through a games connection. He is privately not a supporter of the government but keen to help it work well - again, he seems to me to keep his opinions and his work appropriately distinct.
That's more encouraging, and I certainly hope it is the case.
Of course the best thing about them not being like The Thick of It would be that the real service is stocked with real people and not one note caricatures instead of actual characters (funny show, in a shallow way, and some excellent satire, but absolutely no weight to any of it because bar maybe one or maximum two people, everyone are cartoon characters)
I wonder if someone could enlighten me about PNS. I'm used to dealing with statistics, and I understand the difference between populations and statistics.
Your sample is unrepresentative (bad), so you need to make allowances for this (bad), This is possible only if you have information about the population - why the sample is unrepresentative for example. I understand why they use previous voting patterns and such but the assumption is that this is static. And that young educated cockneys will behave like young educated Scots like MalcolmG, for example.
Therefore the statisticians make assumptions based on previous experience of a party like Ukip coming through and having such an "interesting" media baptism.
You would have to make some very broad assumptions. Indeed some very brave assumptions. You might be totally wrong and you'd have no idea about standard errors.
So overall, am I right in assuming that it's what we used to call (with tongue in cheek) an educated guess?
An interesting exercise but only that, surely?
CD, thanks for the compliment , I pass the educated part but the young bit is a big stretch.
it would be monumentally stupid for UKIP, which has many leftwing supporters, to effectively declare itself a mini-me Conservative Party.
Yes, they've only just managed to shake off that automatic perception among many, even if a large proportion of their support is from former Tories, but if they want to sustain their current levels or grow further, they need to tread carefully and appear distinct. That senior and backbench Tories still act like UKIP votes belong to them and all they need to do is have the Tories become UKIP, is a sign of their delusion of what UKIP want and what will work for them. For some, I suspect they want to be in a party like UKIP, but also don't want a voting revolution in order to remain as MPs.
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
This interests me.
The Scottish Tories have achieved more than 15% (and less than 20%) of the popular vote in every national Scottish election in the last 20 years as far as I can tell, both to Westminster and Holyrood.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
If we end up with a separated Scotland, I'd say that may well lead to a Scottish Conservative recovery. Clearly there is a strong core support at that level.
Yes 1 MP and almost all their MSP's from the consolation list. That might give you a clue.
To be fair, the Tories do have a consistent enough support to be at least a fairly permanent minority party - though even their leader is, IIRC, from the list section of the voting rather than achieving her own constituency. They did also behave in a more rational way than Labour when the SNP took over the reins in 2007. Under Auntie Bella, they got a extra 1000 polis on the beat out of horse trading with the SNP, for instance, when Labour were so busy throwing their teddies out the baby buggy that they voted against their own proposals just because the SNP said 'yes, OK' and put them in the programme. Though I find it hard to forgive the Tories for letting Labour and the LDs squander so much money on the Edinburgh trams - two of which I saw running today, rather later than expected.
@politicshome: Shadow Cabinet Minister Michael Dugher tells @BBCRadio4 that Labour “made extremely good progress” in the local elections
All the way from complacency to outright denial...
Labour did make very good progess. 2010 was a relatively high watermark for Labour as our voters normally do not give a f*** regarding local elections. 2010 was different. It coincided with GE2010.
London results were spectacular ! May 2010 was a very good result for Labour, in the locals and in the GE [ compared to the rUK ]. To build on that was unbelievable.
Thursday / Frday night was a game of two halves.
I remember seeing at one time, UKIP gains of 50+ and Labour in small single digits. At one time I even saw Labour -2. The second half, when London votes rolled in shows what London is. A great city where people do not vote on who moved in next door.
The Hammersmith & Fulham vote was the cream. All of us had thought that H&CF had gone the Wandsworth way. Lowering Council Tax forever by cutting services will create a hard core vote base. They defied that. In Wandsworth too, it was Labour's best result since 1990.
Shush Surby. It was a disaster for Labour. The Tories have said so.
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
What on earth are "Senior Treasury officials" doing joining the spinning fest surrounding a highly political campaign? Besides securing whatever bonus is associated with meeting their explicitly stated target of helping oppose Scottish independence? How far the UK civil service has fallen.
The Tories have lost the plot, now using the civil service as their stupid little helpers, as if anyone would believe it , just pathetic.
Though I find it hard to forgive the Tories for letting Labour and the LDs squander so much money on the Edinburgh trams - two of which I saw running today, rather later than expected.
The Tories voted against the trams. The SNP voted them through.
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
What on earth are "Senior Treasury officials" doing joining the spinning fest surrounding a highly political campaign? Besides securing whatever bonus is associated with meeting their explicitly stated target of helping oppose Scottish independence? How far the UK civil service has fallen.
The Tories have lost the plot, now using the civil service as their stupid little helpers, as if anyone would believe it , just pathetic.
You may be correct for all I know, but it has been made abudantly clear to me that I am supposed to accept that nothing any unionist says or any group that says anything positive about it, or of uncertainties should a Yes vote occur, would be believed by any sane person, so labelling this particular bit as pathetic seems redundant.
The SNP only claim Scotland is too wee and too poor to have it's own currency with too small a tax base to fund their wild schemes.
It's UKIP that claim their voters are too stupid.
@reporterboy: That UKIP do worse in younger high density multi-cultural better educated areas is true...not sure how smart it is of them to point it out
This seems to refer to Suzanne Evans radio interview the other day. Her actual remarks are not controversial.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
Though I find it hard to forgive the Tories for letting Labour and the LDs squander so much money on the Edinburgh trams - two of which I saw running today, rather later than expected.
The Tories voted against the trams. The SNP voted them through.
That is the council vote - forced to salvage something from the mess (and in a cut down form).
I was talking about the original Scottish Parliament vote. It was the Tories and their little helpers who started the whole thing off, and the SNP who tried to stop it. As I pointed out here not so long ago when someone was trying a spot of rewriting of history.
"Where would such a result leave the Westminster parties? Somewhere between a state of denial and shock, probably. There are always reasons to rationalise away exceptional results as an aberration"
And the Scottish Conservatives are still in denial and shock 17 years after the 1997 wipeout.
This interests me.
The Scottish Tories have achieved more than 15% (and less than 20%) of the popular vote in every national Scottish election in the last 20 years as far as I can tell, both to Westminster and Holyrood.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
If we end up with a separated Scotland, I'd say that may well lead to a Scottish Conservative recovery. Clearly there is a strong core support at that level.
Good morning all. I was going to point out that Stuart is a Tory but just cant bring himself to be a British one so is of the SNP variety. As he says there is a substantial minority within the SNP who are naturally centre-right in their political philosophy and if Scotland votes YES in September I would hope they would return to the (new) fold.
Easterross , there would need to be some clear out before I would consider going near them. A very very big job ahead for Tories after YES vote.
It's Labour that seems to be getting the kicking in the media though.
I suspect this is because (a) they don't want to praise UKIP; (b) Conservatives do badly rapidly (accurately or not) becomes a UKIP takes votes from the Tories story; and (c) who are the another party again?
The right-wing press will always give Labour a kicking no matter what.
Interesting article by MIchael White in the Guardian on how to deal with N Farage.Answer ignore him.A similar approach might be useful towards Alec Salmond.Both are very good at exploiting opportunities for keeping themselves in the public eye.Frage should be thanking Nick Clegg for his invitation to debate.It was that event that launched the momentum for UKIP.
The Establishment ignore the leaders of two parties who between them are likely to receive more votes than any other Party in the UK.
And the Dead Tree Press wonder why they are held in the same high regard as Parliament?
It is thought that a central component will be the suggestion that Holyrood should be given more tax powers. The Liberal Democrats are proposing 50% of revenue should be raised by the Scottish Parliament and Labour 40%; the Scottish Conservatives' plan will be "in the same ballpark".
"This time the Tories will not be putting the brakes on," declared a senior source with close knowledge of the commission process. "We will not be making the mistakes of the past. "
Ho ho. Time to look up those old newspaper clippings from the 1979 referendum campaign.
Best we would ever see is more responsibility and less powers. Just result in budget reduction as they keep all the tax raising powers that are useful.
The internal condradictions of UKIP will need resolving; but I cannot see flat taxes and grammar schools going downs as well in Rotherham as Surrey. Mind you, the last UKIP GE manifesto only gained 3.1% of the vote in 2010, so probably right to shred it and start again.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but it very much seems to be the case that for large areas parties have either given up competing altogether, or their competing has no impact. London is Labour now and it seems unlikely to change anytime soon. The Shires are Tory now and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Labour are closest to still being a true 'national' party, but are still very weak in some areas, while the LDs will be eliminated or near eliminated in many areas so they cannot be such a party, and the Tories are similarly either very weak or hopelessly weak in many major areas like the northern cities or Scotland, on average.
As it is the brands of the parties more than the policies that is the problem (the policies may be a major issue for certain areas, but there was that enlightening poll about how many support tory policies until they find out they are tory policies), they cannot even do anything to reverse it, as it becomes accepted that Tories do not win in Scotland (hence talk of making it seperate and renaming that party), or in London, then nothing they do to make inroads will work.
It's Labour that seems to be getting the kicking in the media though.
I suspect this is because (a) they don't want to praise UKIP; (b) Conservatives do badly rapidly (accurately or not) becomes a UKIP takes votes from the Tories story; and (c) who are the another party again?
The right-wing press will always give Labour a kicking no matter what.
And the left wing will always give the Tories a kicking no matter what, yes of course they will. Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
I don't think Labour need to panic over the results, but they didn't do well enough to avoid the usual suspects' mouthing off from gaining at least some traction.
Looking at UKIP in NI - they have won 1 seat in Armagh, 1 in Carrick Castle and 1 in the Mournes - looks like where they have put up candidates they have been elected. Perhaps should have put up more!
Though I find it hard to forgive the Tories for letting Labour and the LDs squander so much money on the Edinburgh trams - two of which I saw running today, rather later than expected.
The Tories voted against the trams. The SNP voted them through.
Are we to believe the rumours that Ashcroft Mega is going to be bad for the Tories? I speak from a betting perspective
His last one was bad for them wasn't it? If people in marginals were less willing to give the Tories the benefit of the doubt when the economy was worse than now, it seems highly probable to me that they would give them less credit when things start to pick up a little.
The internal condradictions of UKIP will need resolving; but I cannot see flat taxes and grammar schools going downs as well in Rotherham as Surrey. Mind you, the last UKIP GE manifesto only gained 3.1% of the vote in 2010, so probably right to shred it and start again.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
I can certainly see Grammar schools going down well in Rotherham given the state of the comprehensive system. It is one reason Free Schools are so hugely popular with those who actually have and use them compared to those for whom they are only a hypothetical debate.
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
What on earth are "Senior Treasury officials" doing joining the spinning fest surrounding a highly political campaign? Besides securing whatever bonus is associated with meeting their explicitly stated target of helping oppose Scottish independence? How far the UK civil service has fallen.
The Tories have lost the plot, now using the civil service as their stupid little helpers, as if anyone would believe it , just pathetic.
You may be correct for all I know, but it has been made abudantly clear to me that I am supposed to accept that nothing any unionist says or any group that says anything positive about it, or of uncertainties should a Yes vote occur, would be believed by any sane person, so labelling this particular bit as pathetic seems redundant.
KLE4 , to have the civil service tell obvious lies using manipulated data should be of concern to everyone. It is more than pathetic, is shows clearly what a shambles the UK has become, as close to a banana republic as you can get. State propaganda is the order of the day with willing civil servants happy to comply to get their leg up the greasy pole.
Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
Please, BBC News has been incredibly right-wing since James Harding took over. He took The Times to right as editor too.
I think that the speculation that the LibDems wouldn't accept Balls is as misplaced as the idea that Labour would insist on Clegg's replacement. Whatever parties say in public, in reality they accept with rare exceptions that parties get to choose who their top people are themselves. In any case, Balls isn't especially disliked by other parties at a personal level or seen as a mad spender - like Richard N, they tend to think he's a familiar type of politician like themselves who will do what's necessary in practice. They think him easier to categorise than EdM.
On topic, I wonder if Act III, Newark, isn't going to be a bit of a damp squib. My impression is that everyone is exhausted from the Euros and the result will be unremarkable. Take me - I'm just down the road from there, i'm as zealous as they come, and I've nothing special to do this weekend. Am I hastening up to fight the good fight? No, I'm putting my feet up.
On the megapoll, the impression we're geting is that with a few exceptions there isn't much of the usual incumbency vote and in some cases there's an anti-incumbency vote. This seems linked to the general air of digruntlement rather than a rush back to Labour - the timelapse between "Time for a fresh face" and "Hell, they're not much good either, let's try someone else" has shortened dramatically. It'll be interesting to see if that's what the poll shows.
''The internal contradictions of UKIP will need resolving'';
What about labour's internal contradictions? How is ed going to win back working class communities without alienating his metropolitan vote completely?
These voter groups are essentially diametrically opposed to each other on immigration.
Everyone is going to have to get used to a four party system, including OfCom.
I have to say I'm struggling with the idea that the Locals were a disaster for UKIP. They looked pretty good to me. The issue now, surely, is whether they (and the Euros) are the start of something or a high water mark. One thing seems certain - UKIP voters were by far the most motivated to turn out on Thursday. To have a chance of capitalising on that UKIP needs to maintain its momentum. With that in mind, one thing to watch out for will be the manifesto and the non-EU/immigration policies UKIP develops. Does the leadership and party core stick to its right wing economic outlook or will there be a swing to Old Labour? A lot may hinge on that come the general election.
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP economic spokesman, said yesterday on Sky they would not tax minimum wage and raise the 40% threshold
Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
Please, BBC News has been incredibly right-wing since James Harding took over. He took The Times to right as editor too.
How odd. I once had dinner with him and he was telling anyone who would listen how he'd be backing Labour if he was allowed (2010).
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
Good post, Mr Observer and an especially interesting point raised in the second paragraph.
I am not sure that conservative social policies will be an issue for either "wing" as I suspect most of the WWC voters UKIP has attracted from labour are themselves socially small 'c' conservative. The economic arguments may be more important. What I hope UKIP do is have an internal debate and come up with a set of policies that are coherent and then stand (or fall) by them.
I haven't seen so much obvious media bias at the BBC since it fell for the SDP,hook,line and sinker,in the early 80s.Polly Toynbee,the old SDP princess, bashing away at Labour,David Owen and Shirley Williams,the Ant and Dec of their time,never off the telly. It's hard to see Newark as a possible new Crosby though, because of the fact that the beeb's support will baulk because of the attitudes and beliefs of the Ukip candidate there.
Senior Treasury officials have said that Alex Salmond's promise to offer free nursery places to every child under five after Scottish independence "simply doesn't add up".
What on earth are "Senior Treasury officials" doing joining the spinning fest surrounding a highly political campaign? Besides securing whatever bonus is associated with meeting their explicitly stated target of helping oppose Scottish independence? How far the UK civil service has fallen.
The Tories have lost the plot, now using the civil service as their stupid little helpers, as if anyone would believe it , just pathetic.
You may be correct for all I know, but it has been made abudantly clear to me that I am supposed to accept that nothing any unionist says or any group that says anything positive about it, or of uncertainties should a Yes vote occur, would be believed by any sane person, so labelling this particular bit as pathetic seems redundant.
KLE4 , to have the civil service tell obvious lies using manipulated data should be of concern to everyone. It is more than pathetic, is shows clearly what a shambles the UK has become, as close to a banana republic as you can get. State propaganda is the order of the day with willing civil servants happy to comply to get their leg up the greasy pole.
If it is happening it definitely should be of concern to everyone, you are correct. My point was that damn near every single thing that anyone says coming from the No side is labelled as laughable/pathetic/appalling/take your pick from the Yes side, and pretty much vice versa. Never that something is just wrong, or misguided, or that Y is bad but not as bad as X.
Therefore, the strength of your concern does not register with me, because I cannot take anything either side says at face value as neither side does anything but label everything of substance as pathetic/laughable/appalling that I don't know if it is true or not, and the hysteria on both sides mean I have no incentive to find out.
As I have no vote in the debate, that hardly matters to either side, but I'm pretty much inured to all comments coming from the debate now as probably exagerrated partisan crap, so when something genuine comes along which deserves my concern, I won't notice it.
Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
Please, BBC News has been incredibly right-wing since James Harding took over. He took The Times to right as editor too.
A section of the BBC has been incredibly right-wing? You must let the Tory papers know, and their comment sections, as the whinging about the BBC has been particularly intense this year.
On topic, I wonder if Act III, Newark, isn't going to be a bit of a damp squib. My impression is that everyone is exhausted from the Euros and the result will be unremarkable. Take me - I'm just down the road from there, i'm as zealous as they come, and I've nothing special to do this weekend. Am I hastening up to fight the good fight? No, I'm putting my feet up.
You're probably right about it. It needed more than an earthquake for UKIP to win there, it seems (or rather, UKIP winning the Euros was actually pretty achievable, even if the outcome will still be very significant and groundbreaking, whereas Newark was possible but needed a genuine earthquake), so why focus as much on there when there is a winnable contest in the Euros and then place a good second to maintain momentum.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
As to UKIP its fate is to become a populist party - its message will be aimed at the C1C2s and private sector Bs and Ds. And that message will be "the establishment takes money from you and gives it to the feral rich and feral poor, we will take money from the feral rich and feral poor and give it to you". That's a very attractive message to people who will be increasingly angry about the effects that globalisation etc bring. How well it would work in government is another matter.
Labour faces on TV seem to keep on saying that UKIP wil have a flat tax and charge for the NHS... I will bet anyone on here whatever they like at even money that neither of those policies will be in the next UKIP manifesto.
It is like saying the Lib Dems are going to scrap tuition fees
Farage on Labour's reaction to the UKIP success/failure in the locals
"I guess this means that Labour will come after us very aggressively in the year ahead. Well, I am ready for that. Don’t believe them when they try and depict us as mad privatisers – we are not.
What we are is a party that believes in getting better value for money for taxpayers and cutting out layers of overpaid senior management and politically correct, non-productive activities.
We will spell out plenty of money-saving policies in our election manifesto. But let me make this clear now: the National Health Service free at the point of use is something we fully believe in."
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
What are you talking about ?
Do you think there the only places which are swinging to Labour ?
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
Please, BBC News has been incredibly right-wing since James Harding took over. He took The Times to right as editor too.
A section of the BBC has been incredibly right-wing? You must let the Tory papers know, and their comment sections, as the whinging about the BBC has been particularly intense this year.
The BBC is right wing. That's why I don't listen to its crap anymore. ITV / C4 is better.
@Another_richard - But UKIP believes in lower taxes for the rich. Or has done until now. It also believes very strongly in globalisation and free trade as far as I can see.
What would be interesting would be to see the development of a socially conservative, patriotic Callaghan/Healey style left of centre party, with the Bennites somewhere else entirely. I could see that doing very well in many current Labour heartlands. But UKIP doesn't currently have the leadership for that. As its membership grows though that may change.
If UKIP gives up on London it is essentially saying that it cannot win in multi-ethnic, economically vibrant locations. That does not strike me as a message of hope. It will mean it will forever be a party of opposition and protest. But, I suppose, that may be the party's permanent role. Perhaps the solution is to be an alliance rather than a party - people with very different world views united by overriding concerns about immigration and national sovereignty, prepared to forget other differences to work together on these. An SNP for England, if you like.
Labour faces on TV seem to keep on saying that UKIP wil have a flat tax and charge for the NHS... I will bet anyone on here whatever they like at even money that neither of those policies will be in the next UKIP manifesto.
It is like saying the Lib Dems are going to scrap tuition fees
Farage on Labour's reaction to the UKIP success/failure in the locals
"I guess this means that Labour will come after us very aggressively in the year ahead. Well, I am ready for that. Don’t believe them when they try and depict us as mad privatisers – we are not.
What we are is a party that believes in getting better value for money for taxpayers and cutting out layers of overpaid senior management and politically correct, non-productive activities.
We will spell out plenty of money-saving policies in our election manifesto. But let me make this clear now: the National Health Service free at the point of use is something we fully believe in."
Sigh. Precisely why I said UKIP are not the revolution we are all waiting for. One set of cracking results and they are scampering to the centre ground. I hate the club! Let me in the club!
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
If Labour can absorb big swings to UKIP in its heartlands and still keep the vast majority of its MPs, that's pretty efficient isn't it? I guess we'll need to see what happens in a GE before we can make a definitive call on that. I'd say the bigger concern is that Labour has failed almost entirely to engage with the non-Labour inclined section of the voting public.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You mean like in Ealing, Acton which is a super marginal. Brent, which has a LD MP. Increasing votes in other marginals like Tooting. I would like to know the Bermondsey aggregate results.
What are you talking about ?
Do you think there the only places which are swinging to Labour ?
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
The loss of the WWC and the gaining of generation rent and the hipster set will help wipe out Labours electoral advantage.
One thing that should concern Labour is their increasingly inefficient vote distribution.
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Labour did so well in London: Miliband's promise on rent control. I had drinks with Labour activist friends last night and they were all adamant that this was the message they heard from voters on the door: we love the Rent Thing
High and rising rents are a huge issue in London, much less so elsewhere.
The problem with this is that, by definition, the effect of one popular policy will wear off over time (notice how Miliband's gas bill boost has gone), moreover, should Labour ever be in a position to enact this silly proposal, voters will get to see the downsides, and they could be very nasty.
London is not Labour forever. London is temporarily smitten by one thing Miliband said at just the right time before one local election. That is all.
I'm biased. I'm a London renter (the best gosh-darn veal crate/bedsit in west London.) But in the short-term, this policy would also probably take some of the upward pressure off on house prices.
Besides, even if Ed goes back on this promise, part of the sick fun of being on the left is getting your hopes up by the Labour Party... and then howling in exquisite pain as they shove the knife in.
Labour's problem is that they're now making a wide swathe of previously safe constituencies vulnerable. This wont be a problem in 2015 but after a few years of an EdM government they might be lost en masse.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
Why is London now Labour forever? I really don't buy that at all. It is up to the other parties to make sure that it isn't. Ceding big parts of the voting population to your political opponents does not make much sense to me as it reduces your chances of success and thins your potential talent pool.
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Labour did so well in London: Miliband's promise on rent control. I had drinks with Labour activist friends last night and they were all adamant that this was the message they heard from voters on the door: we love the Rent Thing
High and rising rents are a huge issue in London, much less so elsewhere.
The problem with this is that, by definition, the effect of one popular policy will wear off over time (notice how Miliband's gas bill boost has gone), moreover, should Labour ever be in a position to enact this silly proposal, voters will get to see the downsides, and they could be very nasty.
London is not Labour forever. London is temporarily smitten by one thing Miliband said at just the right time before one local election. That is all.
EdM supports ever rising property prices and rent controls. The sort of intellectual coherance only a PPE graduate to come up with.
Remember that whiny 'I want, I want, I want' brat who made a speech at the Labour conference a few years ago ? He was the son of a bankrupt property speculator.
There are demographic and economic trends in London which mean that Labour will pile up ever large majorities in the metroland constituencies. All the Conservatives will have, often with huge majorities themselves, will be the posh areas stretching from Westminster to the south-west and a thin, irregular scraping around the edge in places which often don't think of themselves as London.
This is why the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with their inability to control immigration. Labour pile up huge majorities among some ethnic groups, and the right will never be able to match their promises in terms of giving them preferential access to jobs via quotas, or to prioritise "community relations" over investigating crimes. Once these groups become big enough in an area, the Conservatives will never be able to win large enough majorities among the fewer ethnic groups that go their way. Thus it's utterly necessary for them to slow immigration right down, so that integration (and a movement away from identity politics) happens faster than immigration.
You seem to be utterly obsessed with immigration. It's the development of an affluent, mostly British born, ethnic middle class in London you should be looking at. It's a London success story, indeed a global one.
Frank Field's a sensible Labour MP who doesn't have to parrot the party line. They will have to confront Ukip but if the Kippers get some policies, that may be a double-edged sword. At present, Labour are cherry-picking bits of the old manifesto or just making them up.
Labour faces on TV seem to keep on saying that UKIP wil have a flat tax and charge for the NHS... I will bet anyone on here whatever they like at even money that neither of those policies will be in the next UKIP manifesto.
It is like saying the Lib Dems are going to scrap tuition fees
Farage on Labour's reaction to the UKIP success/failure in the locals
"I guess this means that Labour will come after us very aggressively in the year ahead. Well, I am ready for that. Don’t believe them when they try and depict us as mad privatisers – we are not.
What we are is a party that believes in getting better value for money for taxpayers and cutting out layers of overpaid senior management and politically correct, non-productive activities.
We will spell out plenty of money-saving policies in our election manifesto. But let me make this clear now: the National Health Service free at the point of use is something we fully believe in."
That's fair enough. Now those claims will be scrutinised. Paul Nuttal is on the record as a supporter of NHS privatisation, UKIP was advocating a flat tax just four years ago, it has said the UK needs significant spending cuts, and so on. The coherence of its policies and the sincerity of its about-turns will be the subject of a lot of debate. UKIP should welcome that.
Nevertheless, while it was hardly a terrible night for Labour, the hardly right wing BBC has 'Labour defends election performance' as one of its main headlines, because there was enough that did not go right for them for there to be a story in it.
Please, BBC News has been incredibly right-wing since James Harding took over. He took The Times to right as editor too.
How odd. I once had dinner with him and he was telling anyone who would listen how he'd be backing Labour if he was allowed (2010).
Should you be divulging the contents of a private conversation on here? Still, that's interesting.
The bloody NHS, it's like some decaying old matriarch we all have to love or be seen as callous and cold. When she's dead will we finally be able to talk about what a leech she was? Or will someone finally get a set and do the old bird in?
Comments
Barking & Dagenham: Labour 51 +/- 0. Where have all the kippers gone ?
'Tories in vow to drive devolution forward'
It is thought that a central component will be the suggestion that Holyrood should be given more tax powers. The Liberal Democrats are proposing 50% of revenue should be raised by the Scottish Parliament and Labour 40%; the Scottish Conservatives' plan will be "in the same ballpark".
"This time the Tories will not be putting the brakes on," declared a senior source with close knowledge of the commission process. "We will not be making the mistakes of the past. "
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/tories-in-vow-to-drive-devolution-forward.24309041
Ho ho. Time to look up those old newspaper clippings from the 1979 referendum campaign.
There are only two possibilities (assuming No wins):
1) such promises are kept. Scotland gets even more devolution. England gets increasingly pissed off.
2) such promises are not kept. Scotland gets pissed off and it might even be considered legitimate grounds for another referendum, (joy of joys).
The West Lothian Question has to be answered. It'd be a help if politicians got around to acknowledging the question.
UKIP's party administration can also be aided by modern tech. UKIP.org is hosted on the 'nation builder' platform.
http://nationbuilder.com
This should help them make best use of declared supporters.
It would alienate any anti eu left wing supporters .
My point sill stands regarding the debates , hard to see the conservatives giving Farage a run , when they are framing it for the only two possible PM`S.
I believe they will be stifled, which could backfire.
Over-reliance on a tech approach to campaigning would lead to huge swathes of people being missed entirely, but a failure to engage with online campaigning would do the same.
This year's 'I agree with Nick'?
If you're right you'll be entitled to remind us all till doomsday.
If you're wrong I hope you don't get upset about the resulting laughter.
Of course, if UKIP were to return, say, 35 MPs and the Tories ended on 305, I'm sure negotiations would take place then. Unlikely scenario though.
I've been posting on this site almost as long as it's been up and over the years have developed a healthy respect for the views of David and of course OGH. My money's on UKIP, and I'm not inclined to lay off, but it's going to be a tense wait until those boxes are opened.
Fortunately I have the Play Off Finals to distract me.....
Bear in mind these councils were electing only one-third or one-half of the council on Thursday.
Basildon 73%
Great Yarmouth 59%
Rotherham 48%
NE Lincs 47%
Portsmouth 43%
Harlow 42%
Castle Point 36%
Wyre Forest 36%
Adur 33%
Cannock Chase 31%
Thurrock 31%
Dudley 29%
Southend 28%
Piling up massive majorities in London and urban areas generally brings few extra MPs for a lot of extra votes.
The Scottish Tories have achieved more than 15% (and less than 20%) of the popular vote in every national Scottish election in the last 20 years as far as I can tell, both to Westminster and Holyrood.
What is the nature of this "denial"?
If we end up with a separated Scotland, I'd say that may well lead to a Scottish Conservative recovery. Clearly there is a strong core support at that level.
Yes 1 MP and almost all their MSP's from the consolation list. That might give you a clue.
UKIP's stunning progress in seats such as sunderland and rotherham would b thrown into full reverse if Farage did a deal with Cameron.
However, I suppose Farage might be open to not to running candidates in seats where he deems the sitting tory sufficiently eurosceptic and sufficiently 'small c tory'.
He could also run candidates to attract leftt wing votes to help the tories in seats like Southampton Itchen.
Deals with tories behind Cam's back? I guess its a possibility. Meetings over beer in quiet country pubs? could happen...
I currently know a relatively senior civil servant in another ministry through a games connection. He is privately not a supporter of the government but keen to help it work well - again, he seems to me to keep his opinions and his work appropriately distinct.
Treasury sources said they decided to conduct the most “comprehensive” analysis yet of a separate Scotland’s finances after the Scottish Government’s 670-page White Paper on independence included only a single page of figures covering one financial year.........
Civil servants have calculated that Scotland would need the population increase over the next 20 years – the equivalent of a city the size of Edinburgh – because there are fewer workers north of the Border paying taxes to fund each OAP’s pension......
The White Paper suggested increasing immigration to help meet the pension funding shortfall but gave no indication about the scale of the influx that would be required.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10852942/Independent-Scotland-would-need-500000-more-immigrants-to-afford-state-pension.html
Lol, The fair and balanced London Treasury opinion in the Torygraph, only demented halfwitted biased Tories could try to push that one.
(I'm not seriously suggesting Scots should vote on such things as a Leeds Navigation developer's private bill.)
I remember the days when Scotland was controlled from London, by a party with only about a sixth of Scottish MPs. That meant the entire legal system, for one thing, was controlled by outsiders who had no stake in it themselves but could legislate for it. That is a real West Lothian Question. But I don't recall too many Tories complaining about the situation.
This is one reason why there has been so little Con-Lab swing in the polls - the swing voters have been moving to UKIP instead.
Now both the Conservatives and Labour will have hopes of scaring these UKIP voters to their side next year.
I suspect this will be harder than they expect.
Firstly because the UKIP voters are very much hostile to both large parties and secondly because there's little threat of a strong government after 2015. We'll either have a Con-LD coalition, a Lab-LD coalition or a very weak minority government.
More broadly, when even the experts can't talk about NEV without making a faux pas (i.e. talking arrant nonsense about locations of constituencies) how can we have much confidence the projections are as clever and accurate as we are all required to assume in order to win our 'grown up and sensible' card around here?
The reality of votes cast suggests 23% was a bit punchy last year, but also that 17% is too low this year. After factoring in split tickets, non contested wards and pro-UKIP differential turnout in areas with no locals, I'm expecting 30%+ tomorrow, and struggling to give much credence to people who believe UKIP's vote has collapsed by more than 25% in a year.
That didn't spell out that "some" immigration was "500,000"?
You can hardly complain if someone else is doing the homework the SNP should have done.
But we know how the SNP deals with dissenting opinion in Scotland:
SNP MSPs have been accused of "doctoring" a Holyrood committee report on an independent Scotland's EU membership.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/snp-under-fire-for-doctored-report-on-eu-membership.24309029
Welcome to the brave new SNPLAND!
yawn, just the same old Toom tabard rubbish from Scotland hater.
Thanks Millsy, that's very helpful.
My little bet on UKIP to win Cleethorpes at 33/1 looks quite promising in the light of the N Lincs result.
The votes Labour is piling up in London are permanent and in FPTP elections pointless.
You may be being a little blase about the effect that results like Sunderland and Rotherham must surely be having on Labour's northern legions. They must be up in arms. Stringer could barely suppress his fury on the BBC Thursday night. He must be one of many.
Of course the best thing about them not being like The Thick of It would be that the real service is stocked with real people and not one note caricatures instead of actual characters (funny show, in a shallow way, and some excellent satire, but absolutely no weight to any of it because bar maybe one or maximum two people, everyone are cartoon characters)
To be fair, the Tories do have a consistent enough support to be at least a fairly permanent minority party - though even their leader is, IIRC, from the list section of the voting rather than achieving her own constituency. They did also behave in a more rational way than Labour when the SNP took over the reins in 2007. Under Auntie Bella, they got a extra 1000 polis on the beat out of horse trading with the SNP, for instance, when Labour were so busy throwing their teddies out the baby buggy that they voted against their own proposals just because the SNP said 'yes, OK' and put them in the programme. Though I find it hard to forgive the Tories for letting Labour and the LDs squander so much money on the Edinburgh trams - two of which I saw running today, rather later than expected.
Also a little bit of news in there about an intriguing bet on Alistair Darling to be next Chancellor.
Are you suggesting some tory MPs would be prepared to do a deal with Farage behind Dave's back in a country pub somewhere in the shires???
Something in exchange for Farage not running a candidate against them?
surely not....
Selective revisionism from UKIP in kilts
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/31/edinburgh-trams-back-on-track
The SNP is not the same thing as Scotland.
I know that's hard for Snippers to comprehend
As for the current Labour heartlands. I agree with you to an extent. But it will depend on how UKIP develops as a party. If it remains economically very dry with a leadership that talks about privatising the NHS, flat taxes, big spending cuts, reducing employment protection and union rights etc that may not play well among the Old Labour type voters that UKIP says it is targeting. But if UKIP begins to tack leftwards that is going to be a problem in terms of keeping the socially conservative Tory vote that is attracted to it. How the party resolves that will be fascinating to watch.
I was talking about the original Scottish Parliament vote. It was the Tories and their little helpers who started the whole thing off, and the SNP who tried to stop it. As I pointed out here not so long ago when someone was trying a spot of rewriting of history.
Easterross , there would need to be some clear out before I would consider going near them. A very very big job ahead for Tories after YES vote.
And the Dead Tree Press wonder why they are held in the same high regard as Parliament?
I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but it very much seems to be the case that for large areas parties have either given up competing altogether, or their competing has no impact. London is Labour now and it seems unlikely to change anytime soon. The Shires are Tory now and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Labour are closest to still being a true 'national' party, but are still very weak in some areas, while the LDs will be eliminated or near eliminated in many areas so they cannot be such a party, and the Tories are similarly either very weak or hopelessly weak in many major areas like the northern cities or Scotland, on average.
As it is the brands of the parties more than the policies that is the problem (the policies may be a major issue for certain areas, but there was that enlightening poll about how many support tory policies until they find out they are tory policies), they cannot even do anything to reverse it, as it becomes accepted that Tories do not win in Scotland (hence talk of making it seperate and renaming that party), or in London, then nothing they do to make inroads will work.
I don't think Labour need to panic over the results, but they didn't do well enough to avoid the usual suspects' mouthing off from gaining at least some traction.
The Nippers are desperately missing out on attention - you fear for them after the great big Sindy squib plops out a No.
On topic, I wonder if Act III, Newark, isn't going to be a bit of a damp squib. My impression is that everyone is exhausted from the Euros and the result will be unremarkable. Take me - I'm just down the road from there, i'm as zealous as they come, and I've nothing special to do this weekend. Am I hastening up to fight the good fight? No, I'm putting my feet up.
On the megapoll, the impression we're geting is that with a few exceptions there isn't much of the usual incumbency vote and in some cases there's an anti-incumbency vote. This seems linked to the general air of digruntlement rather than a rush back to Labour - the timelapse between "Time for a fresh face" and "Hell, they're not much good either, let's try someone else" has shortened dramatically. It'll be interesting to see if that's what the poll shows.
What about labour's internal contradictions? How is ed going to win back working class communities without alienating his metropolitan vote completely?
These voter groups are essentially diametrically opposed to each other on immigration.
I am not sure that conservative social policies will be an issue for either "wing" as I suspect most of the WWC voters UKIP has attracted from labour are themselves socially small 'c' conservative. The economic arguments may be more important. What I hope UKIP do is have an internal debate and come up with a set of policies that are coherent and then stand (or fall) by them.
PS , hard to take anyone serious when they align with pea brain
It's hard to see Newark as a possible new Crosby though, because of the fact that the beeb's support will baulk because of the attitudes and beliefs of the Ukip candidate there.
Therefore, the strength of your concern does not register with me, because I cannot take anything either side says at face value as neither side does anything but label everything of substance as pathetic/laughable/appalling that I don't know if it is true or not, and the hysteria on both sides mean I have no incentive to find out.
As I have no vote in the debate, that hardly matters to either side, but I'm pretty much inured to all comments coming from the debate now as probably exagerrated partisan crap, so when something genuine comes along which deserves my concern, I won't notice it.
@tom_watson: Looking at the results, there is plenty of encouraging news for @HarrietHarman to share on tomorrow's #Marr after her two day mini-break.
Have had a little lay on Kip following OGH's tip sub 1.3..
What are you talking about ?
Also big cojones OGH for the response.
As to UKIP its fate is to become a populist party - its message will be aimed at the C1C2s and private sector Bs and Ds. And that message will be "the establishment takes money from you and gives it to the feral rich and feral poor, we will take money from the feral rich and feral poor and give it to you". That's a very attractive message to people who will be increasingly angry about the effects that globalisation etc bring. How well it would work in government is another matter.
It is like saying the Lib Dems are going to scrap tuition fees
Farage on Labour's reaction to the UKIP success/failure in the locals
"I guess this means that Labour will come after us very aggressively in the year ahead. Well, I am ready for that. Don’t believe them when they try and depict us as mad privatisers – we are not.
What we are is a party that believes in getting better value for money for taxpayers and cutting out layers of overpaid senior management and politically correct, non-productive activities.
We will spell out plenty of money-saving policies in our election manifesto. But let me make this clear now: the National Health Service free at the point of use is something we fully believe in."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/477848/A-massive-leap-Nigel-Farage-hails-historic-day-as-Ukip-takes-votes-off-arrogant-Labour
Take a look at Croydon North - notionally Conservative in 1992 but with a Labour lead of over 40% now.
Or similarly Ilford South, Mitcham, Hayes, Edmonton, Ealing North, Feltham, Leyton, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Streatham, Vauxhall, the Lewishams and Islingtons and Hackneys.
Next year will see huge Labour majorities in many London constituencies but you don't get any extra MPs for winning by 20,000 instead of by 5,000.
And on a related theme how much good will it do Labour to get 15% instead of 5% in the LibDem seats in south-west London ? None, merely more ineffective votes but of a different variety.
What would be interesting would be to see the development of a socially conservative, patriotic Callaghan/Healey style left of centre party, with the Bennites somewhere else entirely. I could see that doing very well in many current Labour heartlands. But UKIP doesn't currently have the leadership for that. As its membership grows though that may change.
If UKIP gives up on London it is essentially saying that it cannot win in multi-ethnic, economically vibrant locations. That does not strike me as a message of hope. It will mean it will forever be a party of opposition and protest. But, I suppose, that may be the party's permanent role. Perhaps the solution is to be an alliance rather than a party - people with very different world views united by overriding concerns about immigration and national sovereignty, prepared to forget other differences to work together on these. An SNP for England, if you like.
Besides, even if Ed goes back on this promise, part of the sick fun of being on the left is getting your hopes up by the Labour Party... and then howling in exquisite pain as they shove the knife in.
Remember that whiny 'I want, I want, I want' brat who made a speech at the Labour conference a few years ago ? He was the son of a bankrupt property speculator.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/monaco-pre-qualifying.html
Could be very, very close at the front.
I guess Frank meant 'the party coming second most often...or the party we now have to beat'. His words not mine....