Following the by-election polling UKIP should be sending out election leaflets to Labour households in Newark pointing out that only UKIP can beat the Conservatives.
It wont work, Labour voters will never vote tactically for a guy like Helmer.
Farage selecting Helmer to run in Newark was designed to consolidate the power of the party leader by eliminating a threat and rival.
A 21st century variant of a Stalinist purge.
Are you predicting a public recantation at which Helmer reveals that he was in the pay of the tories all along?
A sort of 'Alexandra' Swan[n] event?
Or a show trial?
Yes, more the show trial I was thinking of. They would enliven our politics more than a leaders' debate would.
Channel 4 do like sending Mogg to places where you'd assume he wouldn't be comfortable!
My view has changed. A couple of years ago he'd have been behind Nadine Dorries to become important in any sense. At that time she was trailing (and still is) David Icke.
Now though I actually think rather highly of him.
Just for the hell of it I've just backed him with a rather small percentage of the Omnium fund for next Tory leader. So I'm afraid I've rather scuppered the fun for those that hang on my every word.
Whilst doing that I notice that Theresa May is being backed at as short as 5.8. I'm no fool, so I've happily layed that, and the 6.8s. I wonder if it's any of you trying to back her?
He's refreshingly 'what you see is what you get'. There may be a move towards that kind of politician in years to come.
Bit odd to see 2 weeks to computer woe, theft, doom and so forth as a story on the news, but now it seems to have disappeared. Anyway, running scans (again).
Mr. Briskin, nice to see you back on.
On UKIP and gender differentiation: you could attribute that to either women being more susceptible to peer pressure (tons of negative stories in the media), or the immigration toughness being something that appeals more to men, or both. It's unsurprising to me to see men are likelier to depart from the mainstream (for good or ill).
Bit odd to see 2 weeks to computer woe, theft, doom and so forth as a story on the news, but now it seems to have disappeared. Anyway, running scans (again).
Mr. Briskin, nice to see you back on.
On UKIP and gender differentiation: you could attribute that to either women being more susceptible to peer pressure (tons of negative stories in the media), or the immigration toughness being something that appeals more to men, or both. It's unsurprising to me to see men are likelier to depart from the mainstream (for good or ill).
Women probably just don't want boozy rent a gobs running the country.
This poll leaves me slightly saddened but fairly smug.
I did say from the start that the Tories would not lose Newark. In spite of what some might claim it is certainly not natural UKIP territory and I do not believe there was ever a chance of the winning here. I think that they were additionally hampered by their choice of candidate but I am almost of the opinion that no matter who they chose this would be a Tory hold.
Yep, very good call. I believed that UKIP would run the Tories very close here. The UKIP candidate as well the general demographic makeup (as well as the Tories's GOTV operation) has made this a comfortable hold.
Bit odd to see 2 weeks to computer woe, theft, doom and so forth as a story on the news, but now it seems to have disappeared. Anyway, running scans (again).
Mr. Briskin, nice to see you back on.
On UKIP and gender differentiation: you could attribute that to either women being more susceptible to peer pressure (tons of negative stories in the media), or the immigration toughness being something that appeals more to men, or both. It's unsurprising to me to see men are likelier to depart from the mainstream (for good or ill).
Women probably just don't want boozy rent a gobs running the country.
This poll leaves me slightly saddened but fairly smug.
I did say from the start that the Tories would not lose Newark. In spite of what some might claim it is certainly not natural UKIP territory and I do not believe there was ever a chance of the winning here. I think that they were additionally hampered by their choice of candidate but I am almost of the opinion that no matter who they chose this would be a Tory hold.
Yep, very good call. I believed that UKIP would run the Tories very close here. The UKIP candidate as well the general demographic makeup (as well as the Tories's GOTV operation) has made this a comfortable hold.
I do wonder how Diane James might have done. But Richard obviously knows the constituency and I respect his view.
Channel 4 do like sending Mogg to places where you'd assume he wouldn't be comfortable!
My view has changed. A couple of years ago he'd have been behind Nadine Dorries to become important in any sense. At that time she was trailing (and still is) David Icke.
Now though I actually think rather highly of him.
Just for the hell of it I've just backed him with a rather small percentage of the Omnium fund for next Tory leader. So I'm afraid I've rather scuppered the fun for those that hang on my every word.
Whilst doing that I notice that Theresa May is being backed at as short as 5.8. I'm no fool, so I've happily layed that, and the 6.8s. I wonder if it's any of you trying to back her?
Some see the Mogg as the acceptable face of Etonianism.
About 4 point shift to yes on one of the pollers which tends to be more pessimistic for the pro-indy side, though a mixed picture according to Prof Curtice. I'd like to see more polls before we can see the impact of the Euro elections for sure. But such a shift would not surprise me given the known impact of a belief that the Tories (or, now, we'd need to say, Toties + UKIP) look like winning UKGE.
This poll leaves me slightly saddened but fairly smug.
I did say from the start that the Tories would not lose Newark. In spite of what some might claim it is certainly not natural UKIP territory and I do not believe there was ever a chance of the winning here. I think that they were additionally hampered by their choice of candidate but I am almost of the opinion that no matter who they chose this would be a Tory hold.
Yep, very good call. I believed that UKIP would run the Tories very close here. The UKIP candidate as well the general demographic makeup (as well as the Tories's GOTV operation) has made this a comfortable hold.
I do wonder how Diane James might have done. But Richard obviously knows the constituency and I respect his view.
If College had studied Horace more diligently at Dulwich, he would have understood the meaning of "carpe diem".
Yes, of course you are right: the Commission President is now elected via QMV, not unanimity. I used to be able to reel all this off but post-Lisbon I am badly out of date, mea culpa
This poll leaves me slightly saddened but fairly smug.
I did say from the start that the Tories would not lose Newark. In spite of what some might claim it is certainly not natural UKIP territory and I do not believe there was ever a chance of the winning here. I think that they were additionally hampered by their choice of candidate but I am almost of the opinion that no matter who they chose this would be a Tory hold.
Yep, very good call. I believed that UKIP would run the Tories very close here. The UKIP candidate as well the general demographic makeup (as well as the Tories's GOTV operation) has made this a comfortable hold.
I do wonder how Diane James might have done. But Richard obviously knows the constituency and I respect his view.
I certainly think she would have done better but the constituency is certainly not one that is amenable to the UKIP message of 'foreigners taking our jobs' or 'changing our way of life' (both of which I believe personally to be poor messages for the party to be pushing). As I said weeks ago the town has benefited from a well integrated Eastern European community for many decades - I grew up thinking Begos was a British dish as so many of my friends' mothers cooked it at home.
UKIP might have been able to make headway on a 'knock the establishment' or a broadly Eurosceptic message and with a better candidate but even then I think they would have struggled here.
Of course I could still be proved wonderfully wrong but my gut feeling (and it is a not inconsiderable gut) is that this has always been a safe Tory hold.
Thomas, I think perhaps that you are right when you say refreshing honesty may become important. UKIP are I think partly earning votes because they are chaotic, and forced to be honest by that chaos.
Avery: Going to Eton surely doesn't make you bad. Perhaps it's the emerging from Eton and confronting the world which compromises people. Mogg is rather oddly immune from this!
I wonder what Clegg, Cameron, and Ed would be like if they weren't shaping themselves to appeal to the masses.
One fairly fascinating finding in the Ashcroft National poll, was that in a poll where Labour are 9 points ahead, the proposition: "Do you think the country would be better off if we had had a Labour Government since 2010" got "Worse Off" leading "Better Off" by 10% (34/24).
Admittedly, the "No better or worse off" option led on 36%, but that's still not exactly a ringing endorsement for Labour - in a poll where they'd expect a landslide victory on the support shares.
Heck, fewer than half of 2010 Labour voters thought that the country would have been better off under Labour.
(The "Would you and your family personally have been better off or worse off under Labour" question still got a thumbs down for Labour, with 31% "Worse off" to 25% "Better off" and still under half of the 2010 Labour voters thinking that they themselves would have been better off under Labour).
The client state vote - they vote Labour as readily as poor Ulster Protestants voted for Lord Brookeborough.
Labour's new promise to increase spending on the NHS by increasing taxation on wealth creating jobs is best seen as a tactic to keep this client state loyal.
I'm writing a thread and I'm absolutely buggered to come up with an explanation for two divergent bits of polling.
I'm using YouGov as a base, the most accurate pollster when it came to the Euros, as UKIP have risen, for most of this parliament, those wanting to leave the EU have led those wanting to remain, yet this year, remain in the EU have started to lead those who want to leave.
Possible explanations for the Farage Paradox[1] (support for UKIP increases as support for Brexit decreases) include:
1) UKIP's appeal is to social conservatives, and EU membership is not strictly relevant to that 2) UKIP's appeal is regarding immigration, which overlaps but is not identical to EU membership 3) Prior to UKIP's success, LibLabCon loyalists could express Euroscepticism and not feel treasonous to their party loyalty. Now Euroscepticism has become identified with a specific party, LibLabCon loyalists have a reason not to express Euroscepticism[2] 4) UKIP has soaked up the protest vote, and the level of protest vote isn't dependent on Brexit support
To forestall objections, I am not saying these reasons are true. I am saying that these reasons, if true, would constitute an explanation
Quite. All but one of the leaflets etc through the door have been hand-delivered or were the Freepost.
There will also be the usual 'friendly printer with one invoice for the expenses and one for something else not related to the election, oh no' tricks.
I wonder what the largest difference between the declared spend and the actual cost of a by-election campaign is. A contender for the title is Greenwich 1987.
Quite. All but one of the leaflets etc through the door have been hand-delivered or were the Freepost.
There will also be the usual 'friendly printer with one invoice for the expenses and one for something else not related to the election, oh no' tricks.
Dry your eyes dear - you might smear your mascara too !
Things have doubtless changed with the increase in the ceiling for expenses, but at one point it was a very amusing exercise to look at the returns, then go to the same printers used by the campaigns for a quote for, say, 50,000 A4 leaflets and see the difference.
One party source told me there were over six Tory hundred volunteers in Newark at the weekend. That's enough to not just deliver the entire constituency by hand but to canvass a fair proportion of it. (I accept that it's only one source but I don't think he's prone to hyperbole).
Wasn't that when all Conservative PPCs were ordered to be in the constituency to 'volunteer' (and ConHome reported many were less than happy about the short notice etc)
That number looks plausible.
The PPCs should have been there anyway - it's many of their careers on the line too.
Comments
He's refreshingly 'what you see is what you get'. There may be a move towards that kind of politician in years to come.
Bit odd to see 2 weeks to computer woe, theft, doom and so forth as a story on the news, but now it seems to have disappeared. Anyway, running scans (again).
Mr. Briskin, nice to see you back on.
On UKIP and gender differentiation: you could attribute that to either women being more susceptible to peer pressure (tons of negative stories in the media), or the immigration toughness being something that appeals more to men, or both. It's unsurprising to me to see men are likelier to depart from the mainstream (for good or ill).
I am tempted by this view.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/06/ipsos-mori-come-into-line
About 4 point shift to yes on one of the pollers which tends to be more pessimistic for the pro-indy side, though a mixed picture according to Prof Curtice. I'd like to see more polls before we can see the impact of the Euro elections for sure. But such a shift would not surprise me given the known impact of a belief that the Tories (or, now, we'd need to say, Toties + UKIP) look like winning UKGE.
Fieldwork 26 May -1 June.
"It's all gone quiet over there."
12 hours.
UKIP might have been able to make headway on a 'knock the establishment' or a broadly Eurosceptic message and with a better candidate but even then I think they would have struggled here.
Of course I could still be proved wonderfully wrong but my gut feeling (and it is a not inconsiderable gut) is that this has always been a safe Tory hold.
A man to watch anyway.
Thomas, I think perhaps that you are right when you say refreshing honesty may become important. UKIP are I think partly earning votes because they are chaotic, and forced to be honest by that chaos.
Avery: Going to Eton surely doesn't make you bad. Perhaps it's the emerging from Eton and confronting the world which compromises people. Mogg is rather oddly immune from this!
I wonder what Clegg, Cameron, and Ed would be like if they weren't shaping themselves to appeal to the masses.
Labour's new promise to increase spending on the NHS by increasing taxation on wealth creating jobs is best seen as a tactic to keep this client state loyal.
1) UKIP's appeal is to social conservatives, and EU membership is not strictly relevant to that
2) UKIP's appeal is regarding immigration, which overlaps but is not identical to EU membership
3) Prior to UKIP's success, LibLabCon loyalists could express Euroscepticism and not feel treasonous to their party loyalty. Now Euroscepticism has become identified with a specific party, LibLabCon loyalists have a reason not to express Euroscepticism[2]
4) UKIP has soaked up the protest vote, and the level of protest vote isn't dependent on Brexit support
To forestall objections, I am not saying these reasons are true. I am saying that these reasons, if true, would constitute an explanation
Notes
====
[1] http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-farage-paradox-ukip-on-rise-but-so.html
[2] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/david-camerons-plot-to-keep-us-in-the-eu-its-working/
The PPCs should have been there anyway - it's many of their careers on the line too.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.113986228